Amerikkka joins civilized world
Topic: Dittohead Dogma
High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional
Tuesday, March 1, 2005 Posted: 3:08 PM EST (2008 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling continues the court's practice of narrowing the scope of the death penalty, which justices reinstated in 1976. The court in 1988 outlawed executions for those 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Three years ago justices banned executions of the mentally retarded.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in only a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. Kennedy cited international opposition to the practice.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime," he wrote.

Kennedy noted most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he said, is to abolish the practice because "our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that there is a clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,"' he wrote.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he kidnapped a neighbor, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge in 1993. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, formed Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The 19 states allow executions for people under age 18 are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

Topic: Three-card Monty
Pass legislation to force disclosure of drug info

Many consumers are still reeling from the recent run of frightening news about the safety of prescription drugs in the U.S.

The parents of children taking the antidepressant Paxil were stunned last year to learn not only that the medication was not effective in children but also that it may increase the risk of suicide in children and teenagers. In September, millions of Americans taking the arthritis-pain drug Vioxx saw it pulled from the market after its link to heart-attack risk was firmly established. A few months later came the news that Celebrex, the most widely prescribed arthritis-pain medication, raised similar concerns.

How can drugs approved by the federal government and heavily advertised sometimes do more harm than good?

The answer lies primarily in gaps in our nation's drug-safety system. Before new drugs are allowed on the market, pharmaceutical companies must test them on individuals for safety and effectiveness, and the information is submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. But after a drug is approved, neither the drug company nor the FDA is required to make details of clinical-trial results public; how the drug was tested, its effectiveness, and information on possible side effects can remain hidden from the public for years.

This can lead to situations such as the one involving Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, had a study of the drug published in a psychiatry journal, but it referred to the increased suicide risk as mere emotional instability. Two other studies showing that the drug was ineffective were never published. Those three studies circulated at the FDA for close to a year and a half before the agency required that the strongest warning be placed on Paxil.

Reports show that the drugmaker Merck and the FDA were aware of the heart-attack risk of Vioxx for years; Merck changed the package-insert information but did not publicize the change.

Critics inside and outside the FDA say that after drugs are approved, the agency does not adequately monitor or effectively address subsequent safety problems. The public needs an independent, effective, and vigorous office to follow and act on ongoing studies, one that is not stymied or influenced by the office of drug approval.

The results of all clinical drug trials should be available to the public in an easily understandable format. Ensuring that consumers, doctors, and researchers know about possible safety problems will help ensure that drugmakers and the FDA quickly address any negative finding raised in a study. These drug trials should be registered as they begin, in a central, public location, perhaps on the Internet.

Pharmaceutical industry trade groups have said that they will voluntarily register and release results of some of their trials. But without a legal requirement for disclosure, the incentive to hide or downplay safety information is too great.

Consumers Union supported legislation last year in Congress that would require registration of clinical trials and make their results public. This session, there has been a renewed bipartisan call for these reforms, and we will work to ensure their passage. Look for updates on legislation and other drug-approval and safety developments in a future issue.



What you can do

For more information on this issue and on Consumers Union's other efforts to make prescription drugs safe, effective, and affordable, go to our public-policy Web
site at www.ConsumersUnion.org.

The median salary for a Clinical Research Associate at the FDA is $50,946. When you consider that the CEOs of the top eleven HMOs make $15.1 million on the average, you have to wonder---Is the FDA a stepping-stone to a corporate job???

Topic: kayla's korner
Jeopardy! is now in the process of running a 15-week tournament so that they can find a worthy opponent for Ken Jennings!!!

Besides having over 800,000 entries on Google, Jennings now has a television commercial for some cell phone company's family plan, and you have to wonder when the Mike Tyson of intelligence is going to host his own game show. It is good to see a wholesome American hero for a change, to see mind triumphing over muscle...but the question remains---CAN KJ be beaten???!!!!

IN CASE YOU FORGOT...As reported on Howard Stern---
Topic: Dittohead Dogma

New AIDS discovery met with fear but little shock

By Richard Perez-Pena And Marc Santora

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE


NEW YORK - As news spread of a rare and deadlier form of AIDS, communities already hard-hit by the disease reacted with fear and skepticism but little surprise, given that the sense of urgency about the disease had waned.

"They should have been doing more teaching about safe sex and the virus itself, the seriousness of it," said Albert Wright, 59, who is HIV-positive and lives at a treatment center in East New York, Brooklyn. "I'm afraid for the public. People probably have it and don't know that they have it."

City health officials announced Friday that they had detected a rare strain of HIV that is resistant to virtually all anti-retroviral drugs and appears to have led to the rapid onset of AIDS in a New York City man. That combination, the officials said, could signal a new, more menacing strain of the virus, and it set in motion an anxious search by city workers to find the man's sexual partners and have them tested.

Those who specialize in HIV treatment and prevention were particularly focused on news that the more virulent infection had appeared in a man who used methamphetamine during extended episodes of unprotected sex with multiple partners. It is a pattern experts have seen repeatedly in recent years.

Yesterday at the Big Cup, a popular coffee shop in Manhattan, the customers, most of them gay men, all talked about how the fear of AIDS had declined, especially among a younger generation that did not have the searing experience of watching friends die. Some said they feared that a new strain of the disease might have emerged, but none were surprised, given the prevailing attitude.

"People got so comfortable with the drugs that they have started becoming complacent," said Will Elosei, 37, from Jersey City. Now, he said: "I think people are going to be more paranoid about everything."

Among people who deal with HIV, the response was tinged with caution, with many saying it was too soon to say whether the single infection reported in New York was truly something new.

"We need better characterization of the virus in this man," said Dr. Marcus Conant, a professor at the medical school at the University of California, San Francisco. "What does it look like genetically?"

But he added: "All of us have been expecting for some time there would be the multidrug resistance. This virus has mutated around what we've thrown at it."

The prophet Howard Stern
Topic: Fourth Reich Blues
Heard about the "controversial" GODADDY commercial in the Super Bowl???!!!! Click HERE to see that so-called controversial commercial!!!

You cannot see a photo for this commercial on the Fox Sports site!!!

As Howard Stern gets ready to take the plunge on to satellite, everything he warned the industry about seems to be as visionary as Marshall McLuhan's prediction that television would make the world a global village, not to mention George Orwell's perspicacious observation that television would eventually be the preferred medium for fascist propaganda.

In the February 14th issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria states that much of the progress in Iraq over the past eight months can be traced to Bush's willingness to reverse himself.

While Mr Zakaria shows how President Bush has been forced to re-evaluate his foriegn policies, if no one has ever said it let me say it here now---fascism begins at home.

Even though Hitler began his "illustrious" career with the Anschlauss of Austria, it was his domestic policies of intolerance that left a mark on history...and the persecution of Howard Stern AND Janet Jackson...a nigger and a Jew...demonstrates the direction this cuntry is headed.

In the November/December issue of Mother Jones, Todd Gitlin pointed out---The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States singled out the press for special mention and protection not because the founders admired the press of their time--it was raucous and wildly unreliable--but because they well understood the self-aggrandizing tendencies of unbridled power. They shielded the press not because they believed publishers to be saints or savants, but because they knew it might take unshackled sinners to curb the grandest sinners of all. Had they imagined global carnage and global warming two centuries hence and more, they might well have thought, "In the face of such dangers, now we will be vindicated for caring so assiduously for the liberty of the press. Surely in times that retry men's souls, the watchdogs of the press will bark." Imagine their chagrin if they could see the press becoming that sagging branch of distraction, "the media."

Although Mr Gitlin was writing about the failure of the press to accurately report on the plans for "war" in Iraq, the media has failed miserably in regards to Stern and Jackson, as it allowed George the Second and the reich-wing fundamentalists to goosesteop all over the First Amendment!!! In juxtaposition to what has happened in Iraq, the Stern/Jackson problem seems insignificant, but when your rights are being routinely denied, you should be questioning the quality of "democracy" you are living in...and THIS is one of the primary functions of the press, or at least it used to be.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said--Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere--and as this country rolls back to the Dark Ages of McCarthyism and Lenny Bruce-like obscenity laws, you have to wonder how far will the Fourth Reichers go before there is a call for re-education camps???

Yeah, i realize it is fashionable to compare Bush and his cohorts to Nazi Germany, but i think they could be more aptly compared to the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union. While there are no gulags, yet, we can already see the tentacles of the New World Order touching our every day lives!!!

On Xanga, a blogging community that used to be a free forum for ideas, the blogmiesters are busy trying to enforce this new pseuber-morality of the Bush fundamentalists, and that is only one example of how the new "morality" is cutting into the lives of people who once were able to exercise their First Amendment priviliges. And privileges are what the Bill of Rights has now degenerated into.

The press has dropped the baton, but thanks to the internet, many bloggers have taken up the torch, but now the same fascistly restrictive mentality that has the press running scared is slowly poisoning this last bastion of freedom. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the LIBERAL Party is steadfastly becoming an un-American activity, but conservatives will also see the backlash of this neo-Victorian morality plaguing the country, because fascism tend to feed on itself, as George Orwell aptly displayed in Animal Farm.

Rush Limbaugh was hit with it when he criticized Donovan McNabb's popularity because of his race, and while you don't have to agree with him, it sets a precedent---opinion will soon be regulated by the FCC if said opinion can be found to be offensive.

Like Malcolm X, i LIKE knowing what the average Amerikkklan is thinking, but in their mad rush to prove themselves compassionate, the neo-cons will soon find themselves in the same boat as the alleged "liberals."

Just as the Bush fundamentalists believe that the poor will always be with us was a commandment rather than an ovservation, The Bill of Rights will soon be pared down to some version of All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Click here for a must see video

Let's say THREE-peat
Topic: Football
Yeah, i ralize that Phil Jackson has a patent on the word, but fuck him, these New England Patriots ain't no pampered Air Jordanasskissing Bulls, THIS is more America's team than any other team in the history of sports can claim to be!!!

With the exception of Corey Dillon and Mike Vrabel, New England is so devoid of superstars.Tom Brady, who many, including myself, thought should share the MVP with Deion Branch because he was playing with the death of his grandmother weighing down on his soul, would not be starting on any other team in the NFL!

As the bostonbrat.net shows---Opinions on the pro prospects for Tom Brady were mixed. Scouts had no quibble with his attitude. He was fearless, hard-working, and willing to learn. They also gave him high marks for his accuracy on passes to the flat and over the middle. It was Tom's body that had many concerned. He stood 6-4, but weighed only 205 pounds. He didn't run well and couldn't throw deep with much effectiveness. Most pegged him as a career back-up--someone who could fulfill a support role, but certainly not a player worthy of a high pick.

Most of the Patriots would be struggling for a starting job on any other NFL team, but under the auspices of Bill Belichick, they are all shining now, and everyone is now enviously looking on. Belichick and owner Robert Kraft exemplify something that is missing in corporate America today--FAITH in their workers, or at least their football team since i don't know how many jobs the Kraft corporation has outsourced.

In a country where a C student can be president but too many bright young men are forced to go to Jude Fawley University, the Patriots are a dynasty that working Americans can live with.

Unlike the Yankees, the Patriots are not a checkbook dynasty, and any free-agent with sense will be looking to play there next season to be part of that historic THREE-peat team, and for the first time in their history New England might be teeming with superstars!!!

The road to the THREE-peat is a lot harder in the NFL than it was for the Bulls...while the refs in the NBA would go out of their way to protect Michael Jordan--you used to get called for a foul if you looked at him wrong!!!

In the NFL there are a plethora of rules against the New England Patriots, and in addition to calling for the bookies, the refs enforce these rules with the fanaticism of an SS officer.

Am i saying that the refs are working in concert with the bookies???

Let's say that Ray Charles could have seen a certain pick that wasn't called, but instead they saw a costly New England penalty, and instead of the penalties offsetting, the Patriots were heavily penalized!!!

"> ALSO courtesy of THE MAXX!!!


Arbeit Macht Frie

We also got to see the first PC Super Bowl,with only godaddy.com daring to go against the dictates of our theocratic FCC!!! Listening to Howard Stern this morning i was appalled by the hoops godaddy.com had to go through to get this commercial on the air, and i was saddened that SIR Paul McCartney didn't have the chutzpah of John Lennon, who would probably have had a "wardrobe malfucntion" and would have mooned Amerikkka.

Posted by eminemsrevenge at 9:50 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 7 February 2005 1:26 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

Topic: Football
Courtesy of THE MAXX!!!

Now Playing: Lynn Samuels on Sirius
Topic: Three-card Monty

Post-Election Buzzkill: Why Iraq Is Still A Debacle

February 02, 2005 [ Printer-friendly version ]

Quick, before the conventional wisdom hardens, it needs to be said: The Iraqi elections were not the second coming of the Constitutional Convention.

The media have made it sound like last Sunday was a combination of 1776, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Filipino "People Power," Tiananmen Square and Super Bowl Sunday -- all rolled into one.

It's impossible not to be moved by the stories coming out of Iraq: voters braving bombings and mortar blasts to cast ballots; multiethnic crowds singing and dancing outside polling places; election workers, undeterred by power outages, counting ballots by the glow of oil lamps; teary-eyed women in traditional Islamic garb proudly holding up their purple ink-stained fingers -- literally giving the finger to butcher knife-wielding murderers.

It was a great moment. A Kodak moment. And unlike the other Kodak moments from this war -- think Saddam's tumbling statue and Jessica Lynch's "rescue" -- this one was not created by the image masters at Karl Rove Productions.

But this Kodak moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it.

I'm sorry to kill the White House's buzz -- and the press corps' contact high -- but the triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment.

Forgive me for trotting out Santayana's shopworn dictum that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it but, for god's sake people, can't we even remember last week?

So amid all the talk of turning points, historic days and defining moments, let us steadfastly refuse to drink from the River Lethe that brought forgetfulness and oblivion to my ancient ancestors.

Let's not forget that for all the president's soaring rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy, free elections were the administration's fallback position. More Plan D than guiding principle. We were initially going to install Ahmed Chalabi as our man in Baghdad, remember? Then that shifted to the abruptly foreshortened reign of "Bremer of Arabia." The White House only consented to holding open elections after Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent his followers into the streets to demand them -- and even then Bush refused to allow the elections until after our presidential campaign was done, just in case more suicide bombers than voters turned up at Iraqi polling places.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that despite the hoopla, this was a legitimate democratic election in name only. Actually, not even in name since most of the candidates on Sunday's ballot had less name recognition than your average candidate for dogcatcher. That's because they were too afraid to hold rallies or give speeches. Too terrorized to engage in debates. In fact, many were so anxious about being killed that they fought to keep their names from being made public. Some didn't even know their names had been placed on the ballot. On top of that, this vote was merely to elect a transitional national assembly that will then draft a new constitution that the people of Iraq will then vote to approve or reject, followed by yet another vote -- this time to elect a permanent national assembly.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that many Iraqi voters turned out to send a defiant message not just to the insurgents but to President Bush as well. Many of those purple fingers were raised in our direction. According to a poll taken by our own government, a jaw-dropping 92 percent of Iraqis view the U.S.-led forces in Iraq as "occupiers" while only 2 percent see them as "liberators."

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that the war in Iraq has made America far less safe than it was before the invasion. According to an exhaustive report released last month by the CIA's National Intelligence Council, Iraq has become a breeding ground for the next generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists. Foreign terrorists are now honing their deadly skills against U.S. troops -- skills they will eventually take with them to other countries, including ours. The report also warns that the war in Iraq has deepened solidarity among Muslims worldwide and increased anti-American feelings across the globe. Iraq has also drained tens of billions of dollars in resources that might otherwise have gone to really fighting the war on terror or increasing our preparedness for another terror attack here at home.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget the woeful lack of progress we've made in the reconstruction of Iraq. The people there still lack such basics as gas and kerosene. Indeed, Iraqis often wait in miles-long lines just to buy gas. The country is producing less electricity than before the war -- roughly half of current demand. There are food shortages, the cost of staple items such as rice and bread is soaring, and the number of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition has nearly doubled. According to UNICEF, nearly 1 in 10 Iraqi children is suffering the effects of chronic diarrhea caused by unsafe water -- a situation responsible for 70 percent of children's deaths in Iraq.

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget the blistering new report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which finds that the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq before last June's transfer of sovereignty has been unable to account for nearly $9 billion, overseeing a reconstruction process "open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds."

And the election doesn't change that.

Let's not forget that we still don't have an exit strategy for Iraq. The closest the president has come is saying that we'll be able to bring our troops home when, as he put it on Sunday, "this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security" -- "eventually" being the operative word. Although the administration claims over 120,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, other estimates put the number closer to 14,000, with less than 5,000 of them ready for battle. And we keep losing those we've already trained: some 10,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen have quit or been dropped from the rolls in the last six months. Last summer, the White House predicted Iraqi forces would be fully trained by spring 2005; their latest estimate has moved that timetable to summer 2006.

And the election doesn't change that.

And let's never forget this administration's real goal in Iraq, as laid out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their fellow neocon members of the Project for the New American Century back in 1998 when they urged President Clinton and members of Congress to take down Saddam "to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." These vital interests were cloaked in mushroom clouds, WMD that turned into "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities," and a Saddam/al-Qaida link that turned into, well, nothing. Long before the Bushies landed on freedom and democracy as their 2005 buzzwords, they already had their eyes on the Iraqi prize: the second-largest oil reserves in the world, and a permanent home for U.S. bases in the Middle East.

This is still the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the election, as heart-warming as it was, doesn't change any of that.

This is from "Arianna Online"

WHY GW isn't the second coming of Hitler
Topic: Fourth Reich Blues


In "liberal" circles, the accusation that George W. Bush is the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler has become almost passe, but is it even remotely accurate?

If you have read William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, especially the footnotes, you would realize that the homoerotic adulation that the dittoheads of the GOP lavish upon George the Second is almost a mirror image of the Nazi party's apotheosis of the Austrian colonel, but how well does our beloved little retarded Reichskanzler stack up against the original fuehrer???

Well first, let's start with the obvious---

Hitler served honourably in the army when his country was at war. GW may or may not have served in the National Guard, in an attempt to dodge serving his country during a time of war.

Hitler was a charismatic and powerful speaker. Georgie-boy has the charisma of a snake, and the speaking ability that could only gain him fame as a member of the Howard Stern whack-pack if he wasn't born George and Barbara's little boy, and if he wasn't subsequently embraced by the 'christian' Reich, he may well have been one of those homeless dudes you people avoid like the plague.

Hitler had a majority supporting him. After two elections, George the second thinks his first victory a few months ago was some sort of landslide that gave him a mandate to inflict his will and that of the cash fundamentalists upon this country. Click HERE if you don't know what a landslide in a presidential election is!!!!

Hitler was sober as a youth, and we all know the stories about Herr Bush, but recently i have learnt that auld Adolf was doing some serious drugs as he got on in age.

This brings up a serious question---Is George Bush clean and sober as he smirks around the White House??? i have noticed that no one questioned his sobriety during the infamous pretzel incident!!!!

Being an avid fan of football, i can tell you that no one watches the Super Bowl alone, unless they have to, especially a guy.

You can reasonably argue that GW may not have the guy gene because he was a cheerleader, but even a bitchboy watching the Super Bowl would want company. Reporters from the alleged media should have questioned why does a man watch a football game alone when he has a Secret Service detail that would be more than willing to sit down and watch the game with him. The whole purpose of the Super Bowl is to watch the game and talk shit to your droogs.

Having gotten drunk on many an occasion, and having eaten my fair share of pretzels...the only way i could choke on a pretzel would be if i was stoned out of my bird, and since i'm not smart enough to be the POTUS, i should hope that the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could at least manage to chew a pretzel while watching football at the same time...this is not major multi-tasking, is it?

i am also aware of the recidivism of druggies, and while some may argue that he has Jezeus, he also has a track record of breaking 60% of the Ten Commandments, which to me is like a crackhead saying--I don't smoke crack no more, I just snort a little cocaine.

Drug abuse has a tendnecy of inducing paranoia and the auld folie de grandeur---Has anyone seen my WMDs lately?

Both men seemed to be driven by the clarion call of "Auslander Raus!"--"Out With Foreigners!"--and just as Hitler made the Japanese an exception to his Aryan philosophies, Herr Bush and company seem to have exempt the Saudis from their Deus vult jihad against Islam.

George Bush the Younger is also know for his loyalty to his friends, and those who were in Hitler's inner circle could have psalmed--What a friend we have in Adolf.

Too many people have forgotten some of the comments George the Second said while campaigning for the 2000 elections...Jews cannot go to heaven because they don't have JC as their personal lord & saviour..."If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier, just so long as I'm the dictator..... heh, heh (nervous laughter)"

Not into the nation-building thing, "It is [ now ]the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Yes, i realize it is fashionable to compare GW and the dittoheads to the Nazi movement, but Amerikkka is becoming more and more like the now dissolved Soviet Union!!!

The Russia of cold war memories was a Goliath of propaganda and ideal-driven imperialism, and it was brought to its knees by rock n' roll, blue jeans, and some dude named Osama bin Laden.

While many people are cruising on post-Clinton prosperity, many more are slowly awaking to the fact that a man who trades Sammy Sosa and runs an oil company that couldn't find a drop of crude probably cannot run a country much better.

So why the great devotion to George Bush???

First off, as a First World nation we are probably the dumbest fucks on the planet..."C" students with a sense of entitlement...which is why all the goodwill 'political capital' in the aftermath of 9/11 was squandered. There is also the Santayana principle--Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As we get daily reports that are more Vietnamesque than the war in southeast Asia, many are lulled by the limbaughistic tauntings that this is not another Vietnam, and surely it isn't. If you compare American casualties juxtaposed with the genesis of the Vietnam war, you will see that American casualties are closer to Viet Cong numbers, but all the devout Fourth Reichers will simply dismiss this as unpatriotic rhetoric.

The right to bear arms is virtually God-given, if you're white, just as the rite to free speech, if you're a cuntservative!!!

It's amazing that what Malcolm X said a little over forty years ago is probably more true today---

I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem. Those Honkies that just got off the boat, they're already Americans; Polacks are already Americans; the Italian refugees are already Americans. Everything that came out of Europe, every blue-eyed thing, is already an American. And as long as you and I have been over here, we aren't Americans yet.

Well, I am one who doesn't believe in deluding myself. I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American. Why, if birth made you American, you wouldn't need any legislation; you wouldn't need any amendments to the Constitution; you wouldn't be faced with civil-rights filibustering in Washington, D.C., right now. They don't have to pass civil-rights legislation to make a Polack an American.

No, I'm not an American. I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I'm not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver -- no, not I. I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And to think, some people believed we averted the Y2K problem!!!


[ An almost completely unrelated aside---the photo from the top of this post was from my brother's Xanga site...in an act of total synchronicity, i discovered THAT fact when i did a google-search for the picture!!! ]