I took the pup next door to introduce Tami to my neighbor dogs. They got along really swell.
My neighbor, Bill, told me that while I was gone there was a "Thousand Mexican March" here locally. He said they flipped him off for bein' an Anglo, and held up signs saying "Without US, you are nothing".
His idea for a counter-sign was to put periods after the 'U' and 'S'.
I went a little further: "Without the U.S., who & where the fuck d'ya think you'd be?" I'm not politically correct at the best of times, let alone at less than the best.
I think there's a lot of confusion over the difference between 'legal' and illegal'. Sure, there are racists who don't want anybody but whites to come here, but that ain't the way it's gonna be. Get over it.
I think when legal immigrants take the side of the illegal immigrants, perhaps out of pride in their heritage, or maybe fear, then we have a problem that goes beyond the difficulty of immigrating legally. It may be that Mexican culture exists pretty much unchanged on both sides of the border and ours doesn't. They feel this is their home.
It's nobody's right to be here unless they were born here. Others have to work for it by jumping through a bunch of hoops. Hey, if it was easy, what good would it be? What to do with family members who are here illegally is a huge part of the problem, seems to me. Blood is thicker than the Rio Grande.
The Koreans jumped on the bandwagon right along with the Latinos. I had no idea there were enough illegal Koreans that it would be an issue. Maybe they just need employees.
When one of ya figures out what to do, lemme know, willya?
By the way, if ya wanta know why 500,000 people showed up in L.A. on a rainy day when they only expected 20,000, read this.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Time to Talk War Crimes
Robert Parry
In a perfect world, they'd behind bars as we speak. However, late, and pretty late at that, has to be better than never. I'm sure glad that some of the people who have the info we need - it ain't what you know, it's what you can prove - are telling us what they know. It'll be way too late for a lot of people, but Bush&Co. may get their just due yet.
I'm glad folks are talkin' Impeachment and I'm glad folks are talkin' War Crimes. When they start talkin' Necktie Parties, I'm liable to get aroused!
In a world where might did not make right, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and their key enablers would be in shackles before a war crimes tribunal at the Hague, rather than sitting in the White House, 10 Downing Street or some other comfortable environs in Washington and London.
While many Americans think of the Nuremberg trials after World War II as just holding Nazi leaders accountable for genocide, a major charge against Adolf Hitler's henchmen was the crime of aggressive war. Later, that principle was embodied in the United Nations Charter, forbidding armed aggression by one state against another
The British memos, combined with public statements by Bush and his senior aides, represent a prima-facie case that Bush, Blair and others violated the Nuremberg Principles and the U.N. Charter, to which the United States was a founding signatory.
While Bush has insisted that his invasion of Iraq was "preemptive" - defined as an act of self-defense to thwart an impending attack - his argument is not only laughable in the case of Iraq, but has been contradicted by his own advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In a March 26 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Rice offered a different rationale for invading Iraq. She agreed that Hussein was not implicated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks nor did she assert that he was conspiring with al-Qaeda on another assault.
Instead, Rice justified invading Iraq and ousting Hussein because he was part of the "old Middle East," which she said had engendered hatreds that led indirectly to 9/11.
"If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings (Gee, who could have predicted that? - G), I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11," Rice said. "We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer." Rice's argument - that Bush has the right to invade any country that he feels is part of a culture that might show hostility toward the United States - represents the most expansive justification to date for launching the Iraq War.
Yet Rice's new war rationale, combined with the British memo on Bush's determination to invade Iraq regardless of the facts, should be more than enough evidence to put Bush, Rice, Blair and other U.S. and British officials before a war crimes tribunal.
In a perfect world, they'd behind bars as we speak. However, late, and pretty late at that, has to be better than never. I'm sure glad that some of the people who have the info we need - it ain't what you know, it's what you can prove - are telling us what they know. It'll be way too late for a lot of people, but Bush&Co. may get their just due yet.
I'm glad folks are talkin' Impeachment and I'm glad folks are talkin' War Crimes. When they start talkin' Necktie Parties, I'm liable to get aroused!
I'm ba-ack
I'm home with the new puppy. We found out that her previous owners put her in a crate every day when they went to work, and then were too tired or otherwise preoccupied at the end of the day to play with a puppy that had all day to charge its batteries. She wants to play, play, play and will chew anything in sight. She has already improved, thanks to a rolled-up newspaper and my Drill Instructor voice. This is gonna take some work (did I mention that she's smarter and a lot faster than me? Heh.), but she's just adorable and very affectionate and sweet in between times of trying to chew her way to freedom. I think it will be well worth the effort.
The drive to L.A. was in inclement weather the whole way, which is a little less than 500 miles. It was snowing when we left, and we got on I-80 under chain control over Donner Summit. Chain control was only up for about twenty miles. It's a pain in the ass to chain up and 'sling iron' for short distances, so that's why everybody around here has 4WD with snow tires. Also to get to work or the store, unless somebody important lives on your street so they keep it plowed.
A few words about chain control: There are three conditions, R-1 - chains or snow tires; R-2 - chains or 4WD with snow tires; and R-3 - 4WD with chains on all four wheels, aka stay home. There is a Caltrans check point at the place where the chain control starts and on freeway on-ramps. This is a guy or gal with an orange van and a bunch of flashing lights who may check your tires for an "M + S" (Mud + Snow) or to see if you have chains installed. Sometimes there's a CHP there to chase down idiots who run the chain control. They're serious about this shit, because a spin-out or accident can close the Interstate for hours. Jackknifed big rigs are the worst, because a lot of times they'll tip over and are hard to remove to get traffic going again. I've seen traffic backed up, stopped stock still, for twenty miles. There's usually no place to turn around, although CHP tries to close the road at ramps when they can so folks can go back the way they came. It's a mess. In a snowstorm, people run out of gas trying to keep warm, get asphyxiated in their cars for the same reason, freeze to death, get out of their cars to play in the snow and get run over, all kinds of shit. I'm fairly sure there have been whiny kids stuffed head-first into the snowbank during a three-hour road closure. A lot of 'em are on their way to play in Reno or Tahoe and don't even bring a jacket. I got stopped for over an hour once because folks who got by the chain control who should have chained up and thought they could "make it", or were just lazy, couldn't climb a hill on the freeway and were using three lanes to slide and spin backwards to the bottom. Finally they got a bunch of tow trucks in there to tow 'em to the CHP scales at the top of the hill, located precisely where the trucks they want to weigh and safety-inspect are going their slowest, where the drivers were charged for the tow and then ticketed for no chains.
I could go on for hours about that stuff, but I'm leading up to something. The speed limit under chain control is 25mph, 30 on the Interstate. Chains, particularly the four or eight sets on a big rig, are hard on the taxpayer-funded road surface and higher speeds are unsafe for folks who hardly ever drive in ice and snow, not to mention what can happen when - not 'if' - the chains break at high speeds. A lot of folks will get past the snow and not want to stop and take 'em off. They do, however, try to keep up with traffic, but not for long. I've seen chains put themselves back in the trunk of a car, through the wheel well. If you're idiotic enough to be following too close under those conditions, they can come right in through your windshield. They can wrap themselves around axles, brakes, etc., break fluid lines, in general just fuck shit up. This stuff all happens anyway, but 60 mph just exacerbates it. I think you get the picture: Do what the nice chain control person tells you to do, and obey the law for the well-being of yourself and those around you. Take the chains off when they're no longer required.
Sometimes, when folks just don't use common sense, the worst result is a little entertainment. It was R-1 condition and you couldn't see the road, but the snow wasn't deep, mostly a little wet, heavy snow on top of packed. It was snowing pretty good. Mrs. G and me were just pluggin' along in 3rd gear at 32mph (we've done this before and feel we can fudge a little since we're locals) when a gal (sorry, ladies) in a bright yellow VW, one of the new Beetles, sailed past us at about 50. She must have had snow tires 'cuz she wasn't runnin' chains. She gave us a rare, exquisite moment about five miles later when we got to watch her, at the end of a really 'modern art' lookin' set of tire tracks, back out of the snowbank in the median. Priceless! No damage done, but no doubt embarrassing. Naturally, I tooted the horn as we chugged past, just so she'd know she didn't get away with it unseen. She had her windows rolled up so I have no idea what the inside of her car smelled like. I can only hope!
The rest of the trip was pretty uneventful, just 500 miles of varying degrees of rain. I would like to compliment Toyota for the best 5-position windshield wiper stalk I've ever seen, and you barely have to move your hand from the steering wheel to operate it. Settings for every kind of rain we encountered. The stalk is broke in now, trust me.
Please pardon the length of this nonsense, but my pup is asleep on my feet so I just kept typing. I'll end now because my feet fell asleep and I need a fresh cuppa.
The drive to L.A. was in inclement weather the whole way, which is a little less than 500 miles. It was snowing when we left, and we got on I-80 under chain control over Donner Summit. Chain control was only up for about twenty miles. It's a pain in the ass to chain up and 'sling iron' for short distances, so that's why everybody around here has 4WD with snow tires. Also to get to work or the store, unless somebody important lives on your street so they keep it plowed.
A few words about chain control: There are three conditions, R-1 - chains or snow tires; R-2 - chains or 4WD with snow tires; and R-3 - 4WD with chains on all four wheels, aka stay home. There is a Caltrans check point at the place where the chain control starts and on freeway on-ramps. This is a guy or gal with an orange van and a bunch of flashing lights who may check your tires for an "M + S" (Mud + Snow) or to see if you have chains installed. Sometimes there's a CHP there to chase down idiots who run the chain control. They're serious about this shit, because a spin-out or accident can close the Interstate for hours. Jackknifed big rigs are the worst, because a lot of times they'll tip over and are hard to remove to get traffic going again. I've seen traffic backed up, stopped stock still, for twenty miles. There's usually no place to turn around, although CHP tries to close the road at ramps when they can so folks can go back the way they came. It's a mess. In a snowstorm, people run out of gas trying to keep warm, get asphyxiated in their cars for the same reason, freeze to death, get out of their cars to play in the snow and get run over, all kinds of shit. I'm fairly sure there have been whiny kids stuffed head-first into the snowbank during a three-hour road closure. A lot of 'em are on their way to play in Reno or Tahoe and don't even bring a jacket. I got stopped for over an hour once because folks who got by the chain control who should have chained up and thought they could "make it", or were just lazy, couldn't climb a hill on the freeway and were using three lanes to slide and spin backwards to the bottom. Finally they got a bunch of tow trucks in there to tow 'em to the CHP scales at the top of the hill, located precisely where the trucks they want to weigh and safety-inspect are going their slowest, where the drivers were charged for the tow and then ticketed for no chains.
I could go on for hours about that stuff, but I'm leading up to something. The speed limit under chain control is 25mph, 30 on the Interstate. Chains, particularly the four or eight sets on a big rig, are hard on the taxpayer-funded road surface and higher speeds are unsafe for folks who hardly ever drive in ice and snow, not to mention what can happen when - not 'if' - the chains break at high speeds. A lot of folks will get past the snow and not want to stop and take 'em off. They do, however, try to keep up with traffic, but not for long. I've seen chains put themselves back in the trunk of a car, through the wheel well. If you're idiotic enough to be following too close under those conditions, they can come right in through your windshield. They can wrap themselves around axles, brakes, etc., break fluid lines, in general just fuck shit up. This stuff all happens anyway, but 60 mph just exacerbates it. I think you get the picture: Do what the nice chain control person tells you to do, and obey the law for the well-being of yourself and those around you. Take the chains off when they're no longer required.
Sometimes, when folks just don't use common sense, the worst result is a little entertainment. It was R-1 condition and you couldn't see the road, but the snow wasn't deep, mostly a little wet, heavy snow on top of packed. It was snowing pretty good. Mrs. G and me were just pluggin' along in 3rd gear at 32mph (we've done this before and feel we can fudge a little since we're locals) when a gal (sorry, ladies) in a bright yellow VW, one of the new Beetles, sailed past us at about 50. She must have had snow tires 'cuz she wasn't runnin' chains. She gave us a rare, exquisite moment about five miles later when we got to watch her, at the end of a really 'modern art' lookin' set of tire tracks, back out of the snowbank in the median. Priceless! No damage done, but no doubt embarrassing. Naturally, I tooted the horn as we chugged past, just so she'd know she didn't get away with it unseen. She had her windows rolled up so I have no idea what the inside of her car smelled like. I can only hope!
The rest of the trip was pretty uneventful, just 500 miles of varying degrees of rain. I would like to compliment Toyota for the best 5-position windshield wiper stalk I've ever seen, and you barely have to move your hand from the steering wheel to operate it. Settings for every kind of rain we encountered. The stalk is broke in now, trust me.
Please pardon the length of this nonsense, but my pup is asleep on my feet so I just kept typing. I'll end now because my feet fell asleep and I need a fresh cuppa.
If you're making demands
And you're not in a position to demand anything, you might want to kiss a little ass...maybe? You know Jack:
I'm not favored of Draconian policies toward illegal immigrants, but good God, can't you fly an American flag? I mean, do you want to become American citizens or do you want to turn the southwestern Unted States into Little Mexico. If it's the latter, you won't get many supporters. Making the streets of L.A. resemble Mexico City isn't winning you any friends, idiots.
...
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Wolf. You've got to love it. For years and years, this country has failed to enforce the existing laws on immigration, which is why we have 12 million illegal immigrants running around this country.
The problem is completely out of control, and it's getting worse every day. What do the politicians want to do about it? Why they want to pass more laws, of course. You see, it's an election year so they want us to think that they're actually doing something about illegal immigrants.
One wants a guest worker program. Somebody else wants to close the borders. Another one wants to make illegal immigration a felony. Meanwhile, the streets of many of our cities are clogged with people protesting immigration reform. These folks march around our streets carrying Mexican flags and complaining the United States may actually want to have some control over who comes here. Imagine that.
And at the end of the day, it's very much an open question whether anything meaningful will get done. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath...
I'm not favored of Draconian policies toward illegal immigrants, but good God, can't you fly an American flag? I mean, do you want to become American citizens or do you want to turn the southwestern Unted States into Little Mexico. If it's the latter, you won't get many supporters. Making the streets of L.A. resemble Mexico City isn't winning you any friends, idiots.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sigh...
So, Mrs. F is feeling better...much...and now she's absolutely batshit insane from sitting around taking it easy. For those who haven't had the pleasure, she's one of those type-A, corporate Manhattan crazies who goes at a hundred miles an hour every waking minute. Personally, I'm surprised it took her so long.
So, I get home from work today and she's standing at the top of the stairs with a look on her face I know well. "I'm tired of this shit," she says. "I'm tired of lying in bed, feeling like an invalid. I want to go downstairs and sleep in my own bed. I want to use my own shower and shave...finally."
Me: "You know what the doctor..."
Her: "Fuck him, it's been three weeks since the surgery."
Me: "Three weeks tomorrow..."
Her: "Shut up."
Me: "Maybe you should wait until you see the doctor next week?"
Her: "Fuck you too."
Me: "I'm going to empty the dog."
So now it's forty five minutes later. She's been downstairs, showered and shaved (I stood by while she did that), and in and out of the waterbed with no problem. So I guess we're moving back downstairs...sigh...
Shayna: "Yay!"
You know I ain't the CO in this barracks.
So, I get home from work today and she's standing at the top of the stairs with a look on her face I know well. "I'm tired of this shit," she says. "I'm tired of lying in bed, feeling like an invalid. I want to go downstairs and sleep in my own bed. I want to use my own shower and shave...finally."
Me: "You know what the doctor..."
Her: "Fuck him, it's been three weeks since the surgery."
Me: "Three weeks tomorrow..."
Her: "Shut up."
Me: "Maybe you should wait until you see the doctor next week?"
Her: "Fuck you too."
Me: "I'm going to empty the dog."
So now it's forty five minutes later. She's been downstairs, showered and shaved (I stood by while she did that), and in and out of the waterbed with no problem. So I guess we're moving back downstairs...sigh...
Shayna: "Yay!"
You know I ain't the CO in this barracks.
Fuck them
Seems bloggers aren't worthy of attribution:
Look, you elitist dickheads, I'll 'splain it real simple. Publishing original content by anyone requires you giving them credit, period. Personally, I think a lot of these news outlets would have to credit Republican talking points memos for most of their content if it really came down to it.
...We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsmen both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us...
Look, you elitist dickheads, I'll 'splain it real simple. Publishing original content by anyone requires you giving them credit, period. Personally, I think a lot of these news outlets would have to credit Republican talking points memos for most of their content if it really came down to it.
Thanks to Shakes for the link
Let's see...
What did he say last week? "No President wants to go to war." Lying sack of shit. Our esteemed colleague and pal Sizemore points me here:
The war in Iraq was destined to happen before the 2000 elections. 9/11 was a gift from Allah, allowing them to pull off their subterfuge. And you know something, the more we learn about this administration's dishonesty, it wouldn't surprise me if it were found they actually allowed 9/11 to happen after that 6 Aug 2001 brief warned Condi of the possibility. Tinfoil hat or no, I wouldn't put it past 'em.
Update
The lovely Jillian says what I've been thinking for years:
...
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
...
The war in Iraq was destined to happen before the 2000 elections. 9/11 was a gift from Allah, allowing them to pull off their subterfuge. And you know something, the more we learn about this administration's dishonesty, it wouldn't surprise me if it were found they actually allowed 9/11 to happen after that 6 Aug 2001 brief warned Condi of the possibility. Tinfoil hat or no, I wouldn't put it past 'em.
Update
The lovely Jillian says what I've been thinking for years:
...
now if we could get awol to go sleep with someone other than laura so that politicians and the american public will pay attention.
Finally...
An unbiased, calling-it-like-it-is, report (or rather a series of reports) at ABC News. Yesterday evening, they actually called bullshit on the oil company and White House propaganda about Global Warming. Even exposed 4 WH and oil company scientists shills who still try and shovel the crap to the general public. Kudos to them for getting off the pot. The series will be going all week on World News Tonight.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Heartburn
So, I got this wireless router see...And it works really good except you can't connect to the Internet now...And I'll be back when I get it figgered out.
Update
Well, I got the connection back on the laptop and the wireless works fine now...But the desktop PC can't connect to its own ass...job for tomorrow...mmmmm...beer...
Update
Well, I got the connection back on the laptop and the wireless works fine now...But the desktop PC can't connect to its own ass...job for tomorrow...mmmmm...beer...
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Earn it
My posting is for shit today (the F-man's going Wifi and I'm setting up the network in the house), but I sumbled across this over at our pal MM's place:
Seems Ben Domenech is getting schwacked for shit other than his plagarism. Shouldn'ta pissed off the Jarheads.
...but for anyone who desires to wear a Marine Sniper shirt...first of all, join the Marine Corps...go through boot camp...be one of the highest qualifiers with a weapon...get recommended for Scout Sniper school...make it through...then...and only then...put the shirt on!
Seems Ben Domenech is getting schwacked for shit other than his plagarism. Shouldn'ta pissed off the Jarheads.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Dog Days
This might be my last post for a couple days. Mrs. G has been working overtime to find us a new dog. It worked. We gotta go to good ol' Burbank to pick up Tami (She was right on top when I linked. If not, scroll down. "Adoption Pending" is us) through the good graces of English Springer Rescue America. We had to apply to them as prospective adopters, and a local rep actually called (from three blocks away!) and interviewed me to deem our suitability. My part of the deal was to charm the britches, figuratively speaking of course, off the gals who make up the volunteers for this outfit. I still got it!
There were six applicants for this pup, but we got her because I'm pretty much retired and have the time to spend with her that she needs. We raised one from a puppy, but mostly we've adopted adults that didn't need too much parenting. This one does, and I'm up for it.
Anyway, I'll have mini-Hal with me so I'll probably be checking in, but this is a whirlwind trip and we want time for brief visits with a coupla old pals as well. I'll be ba-ack.
Remember: "Until there are none, Adopt one."
There were six applicants for this pup, but we got her because I'm pretty much retired and have the time to spend with her that she needs. We raised one from a puppy, but mostly we've adopted adults that didn't need too much parenting. This one does, and I'm up for it.
Anyway, I'll have mini-Hal with me so I'll probably be checking in, but this is a whirlwind trip and we want time for brief visits with a coupla old pals as well. I'll be ba-ack.
Remember: "Until there are none, Adopt one."
I don't know either...
After reading Fixer's thoughtful post, I started to leave a comment. Then it got way too long, so I transferred it to Word. Then I ran out of steam when my path started branching uncontrollably, so there it sits for now until I get my shit together to make something coherent out of it. Here's the first part:
[I have been sitting here for 30 minutes, outwardly calm and inwardly churning furiously, to get a grip on this subject in order to say something halfway intelligent. The more I think about it, the bigger and more complicated the problem seems, but I came up with a coupla thoughts. Kindly remember there are many books, plenty of minds (for good or ill), lotsa discussion on this, and so far no workable solution.
The illegal immigrants are the merest tip of the iceberg. It's the easiest part of the problem to solve. Seal the country off, the southern border first as by "illegals" we mean Mexicans and OTM Latinos primarily. Then, from Asians, Europeans, Africans, anybody from across any of the 7 seas, because illegals come from everywhere.
Find the ones who are here and send them home. Politely. It takes a desperate person to do what they did. Tell them to apply for legal immigration, that we will welcome them back. We need low cost labor to survive. Just f'rinstance, I eat a salad nearly every day, but I wouldn't if the guy who picked the lettuce made the average wage in this country, which is about $16/hr, because I wouldn't be able to afford it. We'd eat like Mexicans: rice and beans and maybe a scrawny-ass chicken once a week. By the way, the agriworkers make probably $8. Only the kids and women will work for minimum wage, like in fast food joints. In other occupations, the men won't work for less than $10-$12, or $100 per day.
Fine the crap out of people and firms that employ illegals. If they contracted to get illegals to break our laws and come here to work, triple the fines. I think this one's the big sticking point. It's a lot easier for the pols to dump on poor voiceless people than on their friends and contributors.
That was the easy part. Now we have to deal with the real problem: Wall Street, Capitalism, Big Corpora, Politics, and Greed. AKA the American Way.]
There's a lot more to this shit than meets the eye. It's been going on for a long time and is woven into the fabric of our society. I don't really know what to do about it, but nobody else does either. I know that whenever you have a hard choice to make, the right decision is usually the hardest one.
By the time I get the rest of the shit out of my head, you'll be able to get it from Amazon. In the meantime, I'll refer you to one of my posts on the subject from long ago.
[I have been sitting here for 30 minutes, outwardly calm and inwardly churning furiously, to get a grip on this subject in order to say something halfway intelligent. The more I think about it, the bigger and more complicated the problem seems, but I came up with a coupla thoughts. Kindly remember there are many books, plenty of minds (for good or ill), lotsa discussion on this, and so far no workable solution.
The illegal immigrants are the merest tip of the iceberg. It's the easiest part of the problem to solve. Seal the country off, the southern border first as by "illegals" we mean Mexicans and OTM Latinos primarily. Then, from Asians, Europeans, Africans, anybody from across any of the 7 seas, because illegals come from everywhere.
Find the ones who are here and send them home. Politely. It takes a desperate person to do what they did. Tell them to apply for legal immigration, that we will welcome them back. We need low cost labor to survive. Just f'rinstance, I eat a salad nearly every day, but I wouldn't if the guy who picked the lettuce made the average wage in this country, which is about $16/hr, because I wouldn't be able to afford it. We'd eat like Mexicans: rice and beans and maybe a scrawny-ass chicken once a week. By the way, the agriworkers make probably $8. Only the kids and women will work for minimum wage, like in fast food joints. In other occupations, the men won't work for less than $10-$12, or $100 per day.
Fine the crap out of people and firms that employ illegals. If they contracted to get illegals to break our laws and come here to work, triple the fines. I think this one's the big sticking point. It's a lot easier for the pols to dump on poor voiceless people than on their friends and contributors.
That was the easy part. Now we have to deal with the real problem: Wall Street, Capitalism, Big Corpora, Politics, and Greed. AKA the American Way.]
There's a lot more to this shit than meets the eye. It's been going on for a long time and is woven into the fabric of our society. I don't really know what to do about it, but nobody else does either. I know that whenever you have a hard choice to make, the right decision is usually the hardest one.
By the time I get the rest of the shit out of my head, you'll be able to get it from Amazon. In the meantime, I'll refer you to one of my posts on the subject from long ago.
I [heart] Jack Cafferty
...
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: You know, I just have a question. I mean, part of the coverage, they don't like the coverage, maybe because we were sold a different ending to this story three years ago. We were told that we'd be embraced as conquering heroes, flower pedals strewn in the soldiers' paths, a unity government would be formed, everything would be rosy this -- three years after the fact, the troops would be home.
Well, it's not turning out that way. And if somebody came into New York City and blew up St. Patrick's Cathedral and in the resulting days they were finding 50 and 60 dead bodies a day on the streets of New York, you suppose the news media would cover it? You're damn right they would.
This is nonsense, it's the media's fault and the news isn't good in Iraq. The news isn't good in Iraq. There's violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn't turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it's our fault? I beg to differ.
...
He's the only reason I watch that idiot Wolfie.
Thanks to Maru for the link.
Friday Cattle Dog Blogging
"Mom, dad's got that flash thingy again."
The inmates are burning down the asylum...
E.J.Dionne Jr.
The body of Mr. Dionne's article is about the 11,000 trailers that are rotting away in Hope, Arkansas instead of sheltering folks. Trailers we paid for that are going to waste. It's symbolic of Bush and the Republican approach to running this country. Running this country into the ground. Their corporate friends got the money, so I guess they're happy.
Bush is (mistakenly) touted as the "CEO president". His CEO style is like Ken Lay at Enron: who cares if you wreck the joint and hurt lots of people as long as you get the money? The difference is that Bush doesn't keep the money for himself as much as he uses it for his own demented ends and impoverishes us in the process.
I don't care much for Big Government either. One of the big Democratic failures was thinking that government could solve everything. It can't, but it has a huge role to play in the general tone of how our country operates. It can determine whether we glide smoothly along the rails or derail and end up in a huge smoking, tangled heap.
If we weren't all on the train with the government, I'd let 'em get the thing rollin' as fast as it could go and then blow up the rails in front of them. Problem is, they're doin' it themselves. They're in front drivin' the damn thing so they'll see it coming and jump off in plenty of time. They've all got nice soft places to land, padded with plenty of (our) money. The rest of us, most of us anyway, won't know what happened until after it jumps the tracks, and they don't want us to know because we might stop 'em from carryin' out their Death Ride to Glory.
They don't seem to like the train they're in charge of, so they're determined to stage the grandest train wreck of all time to prove that trains don't work.
Bush in particular, and Republicans in general, have to have their grubby little shithooks pried off America's throttle. We're clingin' to the rails by the sheerest of threads here, folks.
Is President Bush the leader of our government, or is he just a right-wing talk-show host?
The question comes to mind after Bush's news conference this week in which he sounded like someone who has no control over the government he is in charge of. His words were those of a pundit inveighing against the evils of bureaucrats.
"Obviously," said the critic in chief, "there are some times when government bureaucracies haven't responded the way we wanted them to, and like citizens, you know, I don't like that at all." Yes, and if you can't do something about it, who can?
The body of Mr. Dionne's article is about the 11,000 trailers that are rotting away in Hope, Arkansas instead of sheltering folks. Trailers we paid for that are going to waste. It's symbolic of Bush and the Republican approach to running this country. Running this country into the ground. Their corporate friends got the money, so I guess they're happy.
Hold on: The president of the United States runs the "big government" he's attacking. This is mysterious. If Bush's "good, hardworking people" aren't responsible for the problem, the villains of the piece must be alien creatures created by some strange beast called Big Government.
This episode is important because it is representative of a corrosive style of politics. Bush and many of his fellow Republicans have done a good business over the years running against the ills of Big Government. They are so much in the habit of trashing government that even when they are in charge of things -- remember, Republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for all but 18 months since 2001 -- they pretend they are not.
And when their own government fails, they turn around and use their incompetence to argue that government can never work anyway, so you might as well keep electing conservatives to have less government. It's an ideological Catch-22. Even their failures prove they are right.
Bush is (mistakenly) touted as the "CEO president". His CEO style is like Ken Lay at Enron: who cares if you wreck the joint and hurt lots of people as long as you get the money? The difference is that Bush doesn't keep the money for himself as much as he uses it for his own demented ends and impoverishes us in the process.
I don't care much for Big Government either. One of the big Democratic failures was thinking that government could solve everything. It can't, but it has a huge role to play in the general tone of how our country operates. It can determine whether we glide smoothly along the rails or derail and end up in a huge smoking, tangled heap.
If we weren't all on the train with the government, I'd let 'em get the thing rollin' as fast as it could go and then blow up the rails in front of them. Problem is, they're doin' it themselves. They're in front drivin' the damn thing so they'll see it coming and jump off in plenty of time. They've all got nice soft places to land, padded with plenty of (our) money. The rest of us, most of us anyway, won't know what happened until after it jumps the tracks, and they don't want us to know because we might stop 'em from carryin' out their Death Ride to Glory.
They don't seem to like the train they're in charge of, so they're determined to stage the grandest train wreck of all time to prove that trains don't work.
Bush in particular, and Republicans in general, have to have their grubby little shithooks pried off America's throttle. We're clingin' to the rails by the sheerest of threads here, folks.
Please pardon the choo-choo metaphor. I got carried away with it.
I don't know
I don't know what the answer is to the illegal immigrant problem. I was reading this post by Pachacutec over at Jane's and it got me thinking. Being the child of immigrants (mom - Germany; dad - U.K.) who entered the U.S. legally, my knee-jerk reaction is to say, round all the illegals, including their kin and progeny, up and deport 'em. No questions asked, no quarter. Hey, my folks had to play the game and the bullshit politics to get into this country, they both got their citizenship, paid taxes, my dad served in the Army in Korea, and helped build this nation (my dad's company was a defense contractor and played a big part in the quest to reach the Moon and the research and development of most of Grumman's wonders). It galls me that people can just walk in here and expect to be integrated into our society without consequences. Not after my folks had to do shit the hard way.
That said, our relationship with the countries that lie to the south of us is a special one to say the least. For the better part of two centuries, U.S. policy in the Caribbean and South America has directly affected the people in question, mostly for the worse. I cannot blame them for wanting to come here so desperately and we do owe them something for fucking them with our little games on a regular basis.
We also use them as slave labor here and it chaps my ass these Big Agro corporations do not bear any of the pain in this equation. These people are being exploited for huge profits by big business after putting their lives on the line to cross the border. Were they not basically guaranteed jobs, most of these poor, desperate people would not attempt to make the trip.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it starts with removing the lure being dangled on this side of the border. Agribusiness has to feel grave discomfort for employing illegals. That's the first step. The next is reforming the labor laws the Republicans have gutted over the past decade. The next is enforcement of existing laws. Then the problem would become manageable. Then some sort of integration of those who've been here for decades. We have to do something soon, not just for the illegals' benefit, but for American workers who are being undercut thanks to our policies which have run wildly out of control. It is time for immigration reform, but I don't think any of the proposals on the table are the prescription.
That said, our relationship with the countries that lie to the south of us is a special one to say the least. For the better part of two centuries, U.S. policy in the Caribbean and South America has directly affected the people in question, mostly for the worse. I cannot blame them for wanting to come here so desperately and we do owe them something for fucking them with our little games on a regular basis.
We also use them as slave labor here and it chaps my ass these Big Agro corporations do not bear any of the pain in this equation. These people are being exploited for huge profits by big business after putting their lives on the line to cross the border. Were they not basically guaranteed jobs, most of these poor, desperate people would not attempt to make the trip.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it starts with removing the lure being dangled on this side of the border. Agribusiness has to feel grave discomfort for employing illegals. That's the first step. The next is reforming the labor laws the Republicans have gutted over the past decade. The next is enforcement of existing laws. Then the problem would become manageable. Then some sort of integration of those who've been here for decades. We have to do something soon, not just for the illegals' benefit, but for American workers who are being undercut thanks to our policies which have run wildly out of control. It is time for immigration reform, but I don't think any of the proposals on the table are the prescription.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Chicks
I love this band. I saw this earlier, but didn't decide to post it until I saw this reference at Atrios:
It's in answer to the bad treatment they got, and still get, for exercising, however mildly, their 1st Amendment duty to speak out just a little against a bad president. I disagree with Natalie though: I'm glad the sonofabitch is from Texas, instead of some worthwhile place.
Go listen. You too, Fixer, even though it's nominally 'Country'! Scroll down and you can read the lyrics and sing along the second through tenth times like I did.
Oh, and by the way, Hitchens can kiss my ass. No, wait, he might like that! Despite the fact that he obviously meets a lot of "fucking fat slags" when he's drinkin', he's just wrong. Besides, they're girls. I don't think he knows much about those.
New tune from the band Christopher Hitchens called "fucking fat slags."
It's in answer to the bad treatment they got, and still get, for exercising, however mildly, their 1st Amendment duty to speak out just a little against a bad president. I disagree with Natalie though: I'm glad the sonofabitch is from Texas, instead of some worthwhile place.
Go listen. You too, Fixer, even though it's nominally 'Country'! Scroll down and you can read the lyrics and sing along the second through tenth times like I did.
Oh, and by the way, Hitchens can kiss my ass. No, wait, he might like that! Despite the fact that he obviously meets a lot of "fucking fat slags" when he's drinkin', he's just wrong. Besides, they're girls. I don't think he knows much about those.
Bush administration's own grim Iraq assessment
Chicago Tribune
The State Department seems to know what's going on. Maybe if they told Bush it'd help. Nah, why bother? Lyin's like breathin' to him.
There's considerably more in the Trib article. Go read.
Repeated suggestions by the White House and friendly commentators that the news media's selective displays of terrorist attacks in Iraq are warping American public opinion seem to belie several unclassified assessments of the situation produced by the U.S. government itself.
In fact, just two weeks ago the Bush administration publicly released a detailed report stating that "even a highly selective" inventory of the terrorist attacks inside Iraq "could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence" there.
Here are some salient excerpts.
In Iraq, "A climate of extreme violence in which people were killed for political and other reasons continued."
"Insurgents and terrorists killed thousands of citizens ... Using intimidation and violence, they kidnapped and killed government officials and workers, common citizens, party activists participating in the electoral process, civil society activists, members of security forces, and members of the armed forces, as well as foreigners."
"Bombings, executions, killings, kidnappings, shootings, and intimidation were a daily occurrence throughout all regions and sectors of society. An illustrative list of these attacks, even a highly selective one, could scarcely reflect the broad dimension of the violence."
"Bombings took thousands of civilian lives across the country during the year."
"Former regime elements, local and foreign fighters, and terrorists waged guerrilla warfare and a terrorist campaign of violence impacting every aspect of life. Killings, kidnappings, torture, and intimidation were fueled by political grievances and ethnic and religious tensions and were supported by parts of the population."
"Insurgents and terrorists targeted anyone whose death or disappearance would advance their cause and, particularly, anyone suspected of being connected to government-affiliated security forces."
"All sectors of society suffered from the continued wave of kidnappings. Kidnappers often killed their victims despite the payment of ransom. The widespread nature of this phenomenon precluded reliable statistics."
In several important respects, this report contradicts the thesis of the current White House public relations campaign on Iraq - to convince Americans that the "reality" in Iraq is far better than the constant stream of bad news they see on their televisions every night.
If anything, the State Department's candid assessments would seem to indicate that things might be far worse than the press is currently able to report.
The State Department seems to know what's going on. Maybe if they told Bush it'd help. Nah, why bother? Lyin's like breathin' to him.
There's considerably more in the Trib article. Go read.
Supremes narrow police search power
Boston Globe
Why doesn't it surprise me that he is the dissenter over more personal freedom and protection from unreasonable law enforcement for Americans?
What this means to me is that that if the cops 'suspect' you of something and want to look in your sock drawer, and if they show up at your door on a day when you're not home and the ol' lady is pissed off at you, that she can't let them in without a warrant. Remember, 'mere suspicion' does not constitute probable cause. If they've got any semblance of the goods on you, they'll get a warrant and you're toast, but they won't get any more 'slop shots' because of this ruling. This is good.
If there's gunfire and screaming and yelling, or the fumes from your kitchen window are making birds fall out of the sky, they can come in your house just like they do now. This ruling is not designed to protect criminals, but rather to protect citizens from fishing expeditions.
I've had cops say to me, "I know you did it/are up to something."
To which I replied, "You may suspect it. You may even believe it, but you damn sure don't know it."
Wanting to lock me up on General Principles may have been a prudent desire on the part of the Po-leece at times, but they have to be able to prove there was enough reason to do it. Enough info to get a warrant is a good start. Cops are suspicious of us 'scumbags' (everybody but them) by nature and this ruling shortens the reins a little.
The Supremes have ruled in favor of more protection for our privacy under the Constitution, folks. That's what they're supposed to do. Good for them. For Now.
For more on the Fourth Amendment and Probable Cause, go here. It's good info to know.
The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both of the partners present agree to let them in.
The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had said police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.
In the majority opinion, Justice David H. Souter said the consent of one partner is inadequate because of "widely shared social expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over who can enter their shared living space. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court, said the ruling's "cost" would be "great."
Why doesn't it surprise me that he is the dissenter over more personal freedom and protection from unreasonable law enforcement for Americans?
Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant surrenders a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts said. "The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote.
But Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying that police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger.
"This case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists. . . ."
Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that ''the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over."
Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer.
The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where they could find cocaine.
What this means to me is that that if the cops 'suspect' you of something and want to look in your sock drawer, and if they show up at your door on a day when you're not home and the ol' lady is pissed off at you, that she can't let them in without a warrant. Remember, 'mere suspicion' does not constitute probable cause. If they've got any semblance of the goods on you, they'll get a warrant and you're toast, but they won't get any more 'slop shots' because of this ruling. This is good.
If there's gunfire and screaming and yelling, or the fumes from your kitchen window are making birds fall out of the sky, they can come in your house just like they do now. This ruling is not designed to protect criminals, but rather to protect citizens from fishing expeditions.
I've had cops say to me, "I know you did it/are up to something."
To which I replied, "You may suspect it. You may even believe it, but you damn sure don't know it."
Wanting to lock me up on General Principles may have been a prudent desire on the part of the Po-leece at times, but they have to be able to prove there was enough reason to do it. Enough info to get a warrant is a good start. Cops are suspicious of us 'scumbags' (everybody but them) by nature and this ruling shortens the reins a little.
The Supremes have ruled in favor of more protection for our privacy under the Constitution, folks. That's what they're supposed to do. Good for them. For Now.
For more on the Fourth Amendment and Probable Cause, go here. It's good info to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)