rhymes with - Space Often Has Races Even Crazier

~ Politics ~
Popularity Contests Immune to the Issues
 - ante up -
"What kind of peace do we seek ? Not a 'Pax Americana' enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of a slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time." (1963)

John F. Kennedy - 35th President of the United States

John F. Kennedy - 35th President of the United States

preaching to the choir

i am so tired of smug facists
lording over the disenfranchised
that they stole the 2000 election,
they still have a job (in management)
n there's nothing anyone can do about it
- n they're likely to get away with it again.

but perhaps the appalling innaccuracy begins 
with the terms: liberals n conservatives
for the left, i prefer the term progressive
and for the right, how about elitist?

seriously
the republican dream 
requires about 100 slaves per citizen
- for the full court press to function properly
- for the full effect of trickle down economics
- for the people to be trickled on fully
call yer quarters a condo if u wanna
if u work 60 hrs a week n can't afford to eat
someone's lost sight of somethin

that people rarely wake up n see this
is a testament to the fact
that education has been undermined for a reason
n sound bytes are worth more than sound reason

in this day n age
with everything wrong in the world
foreign n domestic
if u vote republican
yer either evil or an idiot
selfish or a simpleton
a sell out or a soldier for someone silly
either scenario should disqualify yer right to vote
for it will not be in the best interest of anyone except yer master
n doing the right thing either gets mistranslated or pushed aside

of course yer not better off than ye were 4 years ago
it's those damn terrorists
smoke n mirrors

maybe if everyone held gawd closer to their hearts
held gawd in a higher regard
a more prominent place their lives
personally, i hold god to a higher standard
i believe he's too mature to get angry at me 
for using the brain that he gave me

jesus sed: forget moses, there's only 2 commandments
love god with everything, n love everyone as yerself
takes a real lawyer for satan
to twist that simple wisdom 
into the current political tradewinds

n while i was for the war, in september 2001
it's mostly cuz i'm generally always for 
ousting any illigetimate adminstration
no matter what sacred land 
they may happen to currently occupy

only kind people have a right to rule
n while bulldogs have a place in times of defense
the price for that cannot be the banishment of all leashes
otherwise, we're soon under a tyrant again
n no one wants that except for bulldogs n their masters

so
in a sane world, the terms
liberals n conservatives becomes progressive and elitist
it's just more accurate

see
liberals are usually not found prancing around washington
- tossing tax dollars over their shoulder willy nilly
n conservatives are usually not sober sensible people
- concerned only for the assured path toward prosperity

while some liberals have been accused of being elitist
n some conservatives would like to seem progressive
we all know where big business tosses its wad
n what they want in return
n that they usually get it

now, i'm not saying there aren't democrats
who give liberalism a bad name
but progress is the common theme for dem programs
and the only thing true liberals ever beg for
note that they hafta beg
n that they usually don't get it

still in this day n age
money trumps the masses every time
n beats em back 

if u hafta beg for human rights
- the right to be treated like a fellow human being
- the right to work and eat and clothe n shelter yerself
- the right to send yer kids to college, or even go back yerself
yer prolly kneeling to the wrong pharoah

besides, if u wanna be a bad guy
n get enough power to do anything with it
the republican party is the way to go
they actually have a working program for ya

personally, i would never run for office
with my views, i'd prolly get shot
(i may get shot jus for this drivel)
n i'm not even a democrat anymore
i consider meself more of a humanist
but i know better than to not vote democratic
they happen to be our only hope

nader-gore would be a good ticket even today
but nader assured that gore was run outta town
n before him, it was perot - but that's karma for ya

as long as it requires a billion dollars to get elected
the only people with any chance or hope 
of realizing their political aspirations
will be those who are skilled n schooled 
in the wrestling of many marbles
from those who want something else somehow even more
be it several more servants or simple civil rights
it's highway robbery
but those aren't exactly merry men hiding in the bushes

we have the right to food n shelter
clean clothes n a world class education
- we are, after all, full in favor of such things
and entirely on board with making it happen
so
how is it that every bitta progress
gets shot down before it even sees the sun?

sounds alot like france before the guillotine parades
non ?
keep payin attention
watch the economy collapse
now, who would want such a thing?
who would order or design such a thing?
who would pray that such a thing would please come to pass?
- n what makes u think they didn't?

well
either way
one thing's for sure
even under the record deficits
(bouncin back from clinton actually bein in the black)
there's not gonna be many tax increases
until about january 2005
- no matter who wins

last call






World Economic Systems

FEUDALISM
You have two cows. 
Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM
You have two cows. 
The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. 
You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM
You have two cows. 
The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. 
They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. 
You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. 
The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FASCISM
You have two cows. 
The government takes them both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM
You have two cows. 
Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. 
You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM
You have two cows. 
The government takes both and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP
You have two cows. 
The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. 
Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
You have two cows. 
Yours neighbors pick somone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY
You have two cows. 
At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. 
Then it pays you not to milk them. 
Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other one and pours the milk down the drain. 
Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. In triplicate.

PURE ANARCHY
You have two cows. 
Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors take the cows and kill you.

CAPITALISM
You have two cows. 
You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes. 
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.





Socio-Political Themes in
"The Smurfs"
J. Marc Schmidt



1.) Introduction:
Harmony Smurf This is a discursive analysis of the television programme The Smurfs, created by Peyo, and first aired during the greater part of the eighties. In other words, it is an analysis of some of the socio-political themes I have noticed in the show.

The Smurfs is a unique programme. It is, first and foremost, a cartoon, and as such it is aimed at children. The discussion could end there, however, unlike many other cartoons, or indeed other television programmes, The Smurfs is about an entire society and its interactions with itself and with outsiders, rather than the adventures of just a few characters. Hence I believe it is, in short, a political fable, in much the same way that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was a fable about Christianity. Rather than Christianity, however, The Smurfs is about Marxism.

I am not accusing The Smurfs of being some kind of subversive kiddie propaganda - although if it was, would it really be that much worse than the spate of 'toyetic' cartoons of the same decade that only existed to sell plastic toys? In any case, this essay should be seen as the highest kind of praise. What other childrens' shows would address the issue of Marxism in such a way, and at such a pivotal point in the history of the Cold War? The Smurfs should be praised for using metaphor and the device of the fairy tale to introduce children to political themes. If Peyo was a socialist, however, he was obviously not the sort who had much time for the version of it practiced by the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc police states. He was a utopian. There is a distinct lack of any kind of army or police in the Smurf Village. On rare occasions when it is necessary, they form their own civilian militia to fight off threats. Otherwise, it is the absolute opposite of the police state.

After my brief analysis of Marxism in The Smurfs, I will also be addressing the issues of feminism and homosexuality in the show. But the main concern of this essay is to argue that The Smurfs was a Marxist fable.


2.) The Smurf Village as a Marxist Utopia:
Papa Smurf The Smurf Village itself is a perfect model of a socialist commune or collective. It is self-reliant, and the land is not owned by individuals, but by the entire collective of all the Smurfs, if the word 'owned' is even appropriate.

Papa Smurf represents Karl Marx. He is not so much the leader of the Smurfs as an equal revered by the others for his age and wisdom. He has a beard, as did Marx, and thus could conceivably be a caricature as well. And lastly, he wears red, which is the traditional colour of socialism. Brainy Smurf could represent Trotsky. He is the only one in the village who comes close to matching Papa's intellect - he is a thinker. With his round spectacles, he could also be a caricature of Trotsky. He is often isolated, ridiculed or even ejected from the commune of the village for his ideas. And of course, Trotsky was banished from the USSR.

Despite their different professions/distinctions, the Smurfs are all completely equal. Thus, while the occupations of certain Smurfs, such as Farmer, Handy and Greedy, are more important than others, such as Clumsy, Grouchy, or Lazy, there is no feeling that certain Smurfs are superior or inferior to others because of their work, or level of skill, because ultimately, everyone is a Smurf first.

Economically, the Smurf Village is closed-market. There is no money, and all possessions are communal - property of the collective. Everyone is equally a worker and an owner. The Smurfs reject the idea of a free-market economy, with its greed and inequities, and the collective is more important and valuable than the individual. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. John Lennon asked us to 'imagine no possessions'. The Smurf Village achieves that goal. In fact, many of the ideas expressed in that song are reality in the Village. There is one large piece of capital, or produced means of production, in the Smurf Village: the dam. It is owned, operated and repaired by the entire collective.

The Smurfs all refer to one another by the same title; 'Smurf'. Eg, Brainy Smurf, Handy Smurf, Jokey Smurf, Lazy Smurf, Papa Smurf. This is highly reminiscent of socialist states' use of the word 'comrade' when referring to others, instead of more elitist titles. Adding to the idea of complete equality in the Village, most of the Smurfs wear the same kind and colour of clothes. It is a general work uniform, and with the distinctive caps and blue skin, is highly reminiscent of the so-called Mao Suit, common in Maoist China.

In the tradition of pure Marxism, the Smurf Village is atheist. There is no god, and there is no Priest Smurf. There are only the 'real' forces of nature and physics, and these are represented metaphorically by the characters of Mother Nature and Father Time. Of course, there is also magic, as practised by Papa, Gargomel, Balthazar and others, but it is simply another tool, something that occurs in nature, that has physical properties and can be tapped into, with the right know-how. It is not, as many religions are, a way of understanding the universe in a supernatural context.

The episode The King Smurf was the ultimate illustration of the Marxian conflict between the bad, oppressive kind of government, where greedy kings (and capitalists) exploited the population for their own ends; and the good, egalitarian political model Marx had formulated. In the episode, a militia is formed to overthrow Brainy, who has become King in Papa Smurf's absence, and utopian order is restored when Papa Smurf returns. In this instance, Papa Smurf, as Marx himself, represents the ideal form of Marxism.

The evil wizard Gargomel represents capitalism. He embodies everything bad about capitalism. He is greedy, ruthless, and his only concern is with his own personal gratification. He is what happens when the individual makes himself more important than the society he lives in. Not coincidentally, he is also a crazy old hermit wth no real friends.

What does Gargomel want to do with the Smurfs? He has two ideas. The first is to eat them. This is unusual, because the Smurfs are small and rare, and would not make as good eating as, say, a deer. It is similar to Sylvester's obsession with eating the golf ball sized meal that is Tweety Bird. There are two explanations. The first is that metaphorically, he wants to devour socialism, as the West wanted to do to the USSR and its satellites during the Cold War through its tactic of encirclement. The second is that as a pure capitalist, he wishes to turn everything into a commodity - including people. The second thing Gargomel plans to do to the Smurfs once he catches them is to turn them into gold. As the ultimate supercapitalist, he is more concerned with his own wealth than with equality and fairness. Like any Adam Smith style capitalist, it is his 'natural' state to want as much money as he can get.

Gargomel is a cold, bitter and ultimately empty man. This is because he has nothing else in his life but a soulless quest for wealth and possessions. A definite statement about the anti-social effects of economic rationalism.

Gargomel's ginger cat, Azrael, represents the worker in the ruthless, free-market state that is Gargomel's house. He is uncomplaining, or, since he has no voice (ie. Trade Unions), is metaphorically unable to complain. He cannot negotiate his wage - he eats whatever he is given by his master. He is smaller and less well-off than Gargomel, and metaphorically, he represents the proletariat, while Gargomel represents the bourgeoise. Azrael is exploited and oppressed. He risks his life fighting and hunting for his master, and does not have the intellectual capacity to question this state of affairs, just as the worker suffered his fate for centuries because education was off limits to him, and he had no other option but to work for his bosses.

Gargomel owns his house and everything in it, including the capital of his alchemical equipment, in nothing like the way that the Smurfs own their village. If the same political structure existed at Gargomel's house, both he and Azrael would be equal owners, regardless of Gargomel's superior size, knowledge and skill. But Azrael owns nothing.

The incursion of the new characters later in the series/eighties, such as the Smurflings, with their colours and different clothes and looks, can be viewed in the real world as an incursion by commercial interests to increase the popularity and sellability old the show. In the show, metaphorically, they represent Western intrusion to the utopian harmony of the Smurf Village, just as Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms in the mid to late eighties heralded the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union.



3.) Feminism and The Smurfs:
Smurfette Monique Wittig wrote that women are defined as women, while men are defined by their occupation, the idea being that men have occupatons but women do not. For example, if an accident was being reported, the victims might be described as 'a teacher, a plumber and a woman'. Smurfette is unique in the village in that she is not defined by an occupation or a personality trait like the male, or real Smurfs, but by her sex. She is not a real member of society because of her sex, and this is represented metaphorically in the show by the fact that she was created by Gargomel.

The dimunitive suffix of 'ette', common in our society, also identifies Smurfette as being not the equal of the males. She is the second sex.

Above I asserted that eveyone in the Village was equal. In a sense, this is still true. In the beginning, it was all male, and Smurfette's introduction did not disrupt the patriarchal order. Thus, Smurfette is equal to the others politically, but not socially.

In an ideal, sexist, patriarchal state, women are not a part of the community. They do not occupy the 'public sphere' of work and the outside world, and they certainly do not work. Smurfette's main occupation seems to be standing around looking pretty, ie 'being the woman', although when it comes to problem solving, the producers have not, thankfully, made her a brainless bimbo. She is quite a bit sharper than the rest of the Smurfs, except of course, for Papa.

Smurfette is definitely the 'object' of the male gaze. Since she is the object, the males are the subjects. They are active, she is passive.

Smurfette has no breasts. I believe this is significant when we consider how Smurfette was created. She began life as the almost Frankensteinian creation of Gargomel. As a capitalist, he naturally is treating her as a commodity, something which can be made, used and disposed of, all ultimately to make him money. The idea that a woman can be made by a man denies women's key role in procreation. The fact that she does not posess breasts goes further to this denial of nature, an attempt to control women, to make them conform to the societal norm imposed by the patriachal order.

Smurfette is a secondary creation, in that she was made after the males. She has a heart of stone, and technically, she is unnatural. Physically and metaphorically, she is not a 'real' smurf. She is, in short, bad and wrong, as patriarchal cultures have viewed women for centuries. How do you make a better woman? In other words how do you make a woman who is acceptable by society (ie. the Village or our own society)? One, you take all the fight out of her. Make her compliant, make her toe the line created and maintained by the male-dominated social structure. One visual example of this is her transformation from a brunette to a blonde. Western society traditionally stereotypes dark-haired women as brainy, but blondes as dumber, but more beautiful and desirable. And that is another way to make a better woman. You make her beautiful. Essentially, when Papa Smurf casts his spell to make Smurfette a 'real' Smurf, the visible difference ws that she was more 'beautiful' as well. Thus it follows that before, she was ugly. So when it comes to women, ugly equals wrong, and beautiful equals right, and in a sense, real. But why is one thing beautiful and another thing not? Who says? Ultimately, the patriachal order. And the Smurf Village, with its 99:1 ratio of males to females, is definitely a patriarchy. This adds to he idea of woman as commodity - she is changed and made by men, and is beautiful by their standards. And at the end of it she is thankful.

Gloria Steinem once wrote that 'women were history's first drag queens', meaning that ideals of beauty are all imposed by the patriachal order, and there is no reason for women to look 'like women' other than a need for distinction between the sexes, and to reinforce the idea of women as mere objects, as the focus of male gaze. Smurfette is no exception.

In an ideal patriarchal society, there are no women. Can you imagine what the Smurf village would be like if the ratio of males to females was 50:50? One thing is certain, it would not be the same utopia it is presented as in the show. Perhaps this means that the ideal Marxist state can only truly operate when everyone is equal, including sexually, although it is almost impossible to imagine an all-female Smurf Village. This is probably more due to deep, intrinsic sexism in our own society than any other reason. If female was the 'natural' sex for Smurfs, I cannot see why they would all look like Smurfette. The concept of beauty, if it existed at all, would have no basis, no frame of reference in which to be equated with 'blonde and cute'.



Grouchy Smurf Normal Smurf Jokey Smurf Brainy Smurf



4.) The Smurf Village as Homotopia:
The Smurf Village was always all-male, until Smurfette came along, when it was still overwhemingly male. This means that they did not procreate by traditional means, and thus, 'heterosexuality' would not be the norm.

Much like ancient Greek city-states such as Athens, which many believe is the closest to a pure democracy the world will ever come, government was by all the people, and by 'all the people' they meant males only. Women are not invited to particpate in public affairs. In Athens, homosexuality was not uncommon, nor was it particularly frowned upon.

No Smurf ever forms a relationship with Smurfette. Although she is the focus of some childish heterosexual rivalries, especially between Hefty and Handy, there is never any real heterosexual tension in the Village. The tension is more between Hefty and Handy themselves, who seem to be more interested in impressing each other than Smurfette.

If the Smurf Village existed for ages without any females, how would the Smurfs have been able to understand what the Smurfette was? Certainly, nature would provide examples of male-female bondings that the Smurfs would have been able to observe, but in their own sphere, there were never any women, and never any heterosexuality. Thus, how could Smurfette have been able to seduce anyone? Are the creators trying to say that heterosexuality is the natural state, even if it never existed in society and there was never any frame of reference for understanding what heterosexual attraction was? On this point, I'm prepared to let the creators off. They probably weren't even thinking about it, because in our society, heterosexuality is very much seen as the norm.

Lastly, I believe the characters of Hefty, Handy and Vanity are gay archetypes. Vanity is the kind of gay archetype commonly presented by the straight entertainment industry, for example in the UK sitcom Are You Being Served? while Hefty and Handy are gay archetypes in the same vein as the Village People, with their extremely iconic masculinity, exaggerated to the point of camp. Meanwhile, I believe Clumsy and Brainy represent an stereotypical gay couple.



5.) Conclusion:
I believe that at the very least, Peyo was attempting to present certain Marxist theories in the form of an allegorical fairy tale. The Smurfs, then, succeeds in the way the best kind of fantasy literature does - by shining a light on the real world we all live in. There is much evidence to suggest that The Smurfs, as a narrative, is a utopian socialist fable. And ultimately, I think a large part of the appeal of the show comes from this utopian ideal, because even if it is unlikely to ever occur in the real world, with all its complexities, we can still imagine.


Text by J. Marc Schmidt, 1998.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/3117/sociosmurf2.htm

PS - How do Smurfs make love?........ They smuck ;o)




 - hippies -







Supreme Court ruling
By Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

The Republican Uprising of 2000
December 13, 2000

Q:
I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A:
Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.
Q:
But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?
A:
Right.
Q:
So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A:
Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.
Q:
Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
A:
Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.
Q:
Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
A:
Generally yes. These five justices have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.
Q:
Is there an exception in this case?
A:
Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.
Q:
C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A:
Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Q:
What complexities?
A:
They don't say.
Q:
I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?
A:
Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.
Q:
Huh?
A:
The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.
Q:
I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.
A:
Right.
Q:
So what's the problem?
A:
They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"
Q:
I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A:
Right.
Q:
So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
A:
Right. You're catching on.
Q:
If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.
A:
Right. Next question.
Q:
Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
A:
It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.
Q:
Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A:
No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.
Q:
Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
A:
Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.
Q:
Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A:
The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly opinion about the voter's intent.
Q:
Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?
A:
Nope.
Q:
Why not?
A:
No time.
Q:
No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?
A:
Because December 12 was yesterday.
Q:
Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A:
No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.
Q:
So why is December 12 important?
A:
December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.
Q:
What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
A:
Nothing.
Q:
But I thought ---
A:
The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.
Q:
But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
A:
They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.
Q:
Why?
A:
Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.
Q:
So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.
A:
Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "[cast] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."
Q:
In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A:
Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.
Q:
Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A:
Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
Q:
Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?
A:
The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.
Q:
Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A:
Yes.
Q:
But, but --
A:
Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.
Q:
So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A:
The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.
Q:
So who is punished for this behavior?
A:
Gore, of course.
Q:
Tell me this, Florida's laws are unconstitutional?
A:
Yes
Q:
And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
A:
Yes. And 33 states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida
Q:
Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A:
Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...
Q:
But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
A:
Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors)
Q:
So, what do we do, have a re-vote? throw out the entire state? count under a single uniform standard?
A:
No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.
Q:
That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A:
Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.
Q:
Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A:
If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.
Q:
I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
A:
Read the opinions for yourself: (December 9 stay stopping the recount) (December 12 opinion)
Q:
So what are the consequences of this?
A:
The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.
Q:
I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A:
True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.
Q:
So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes President.
A:
He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to ensure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.
Q:
Is there any way to stop this?
A:
YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end....and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.
Q:
What do I do now?
A:
Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.






 - check yer sources, now -





Burning Bush
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush Sr., on August 27, 1988. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS (Rob Sherman): "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB (George Bush): "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"

GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.






 - this one, too -



SCARY !!!

Can you imagine working for an organization that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

19 have been accused of writing bad checks

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress - the same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.




 - check yer sources, now -



BUSH / GORE
COUNT STILL
CONTINUES

NY Times report finds
Florida inconsistent with rules.

After the highly contested presidential race of 2000 between then Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush, the NY Times is still counting ballots and has reported a number of additional irregularities. The Times found overseas ballots that should not have been counted if Florida's election laws had been strictly enforced. Researchers found discrepancies, like non-postmarked ballots, ballots postmarked after the election, and ballots from voters who voted twice. The Times also contends that four out of five of the challengeable ballots were from pro-Bush counties. From the research the Times stated, "All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced."

Though it found these ballot discrepancies, the Times said it found no evidence of vote fraud. Instead the paper concludes that the election was won by the Bush legal team that "out-hustled the Gore team so that flawed Bush votes were accepted while flawed Gore votes were overwhelmingly rejected."

Furthermore, though the Associated Press says that it is impossible to hold these votes responsible for Bush's win, the findings are nonetheless compelling.




 - zoidiac -


Report: President Bush Has Lowest IQ of all Presidents of past 50 Years.

If late night TV comedy is an indicator, then there has never been as widespread a perception that a president is not intellectually qualified for the position he holds as there is with President GW Bush.

In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

  • 147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
  • 132 .. Harry Truman (D)
  • 122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (r)
  • 174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
  • 126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
  • 155 .. Richard M. Nixon (r)
  • 121 .. Gerald Ford (r)
  • 175 .. James E. Carter (D)
  • 105 .. Ronald Reagan (r)
  • 098 .. George HW Bush (r)
  • 182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
  • 091 .. George W. Bush (r)

or, in IQ order:

  • 182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
  • 175 .. James E. Carter (D)
  • 174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
  • 155 .. Richard M. Nixon (r)
  • 147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
  • 132 .. Harry Truman (D)
  • 126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
  • 122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (r)
  • 121 .. Gerald Ford (r)
  • 105 .. Ronald Reagan (r)
  • 098 .. George HW Bush (r)
  • 091 .. George W. Bush (r)

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G.W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers.

Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.

This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001 and released on July 9, 2001 to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.




 - magic pill -



~ I m p l i c a t i o n s ~
But what does all this mean to us? Who really cares if the leader of the free world is a drooling partisan? And, what other facts may we derive from this sullen set of circumstances?
  • Republicans are evil.

  • Republicans are mean and selfish.

  • Republicans are spoiled and childish.

  • Republicans are not that bright.

  • It takes an idiot to be a Republican.

  • It takes an idiot to identify with a Republican enough to vote for one.

  • It takes someone not intelligent enough to overcome selfish, childish "let them eat cake" attitudes.

  • It takes a smug, spoiled, power-mongering pig to devote a lifetime to a cause that includes only a chosen few.

  • It takes a great number of idiots proportionally large enough to overwhelm the manifest destiny of sane, sober, intelligent compassionate progress to vote for a Republican.

  • It takes someone who has neither the interest or capacity for abstract economical and political concepts, to instead defer to inappropriate departments - as no Republican of any significant intelligence would put himself in the limelight long enough to be cross examined by the press, whose very job it is to determine just exactly what the fuck is going on.

  • It takes an actor to be a Republican and still seem somehow somewhat compassionate on national TV.

  • It takes reality to be a democrat.

  • It takes intelligence to be a successful democrat.

  • It takes a genius to overcome the harsh propaganda directed at the distracted, often oblivious masses - designed to convince them that a great many things (often the precise opposite of truth), are in fact painfully obvious - and therefore they should be angry and frightened.

  • It takes the intelligence of a genius to develop the courage to stand against such a well armed, well padded foe - and through the presentation of wisdom and truth (and obvious reality), win anyways.

Well, whatever the case - as this species evolves, it shall certainly be interesting to behold the path taken towards either enlightenment or extinction.




 - peace, man -



DEMS SUSPICIOUS OF VOTING RIGHTS LAWSUIT
Too little, too late, some Democrats say.
Monday, June 3, 2002

*The Justice Department recently announced that it would file lawsuits against Florida counties that disenfranchised thousands of Black voters in the 2000 election but Democratic leaders are suspicious of the motives behind the lawsuits.

Critics say the announcement comes just as a Congressional committee is working to pass election reform bills. They say the Justice Department wants the counties to agree to �right their wrongs� in a consent decree and that the decree would then be used by Bush to avoid signing the bills into law.

�The Department of Justice may be interfering in our finishing with the election reform bill by acting like they�re taking care of all the problems,� says Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

The Justice Department denies hidden agendas.

�There were no other motives,� says Justice Department spokesman Dan Nelson. �We conducted our investigations based on credible evidence and our objective is to remedy the deficiencies.�

But it�s not only the timing of the lawsuits that Democrats find suspicious. Some say it�s also the small number of violations being pursued by the department. Out of 11,000 complaints of voting rights violations, the Justice Department investigated 14 complaints that resulted in five lawsuits.

�It is absolutely absurd that they would find only five violations if there were 11,000 complaints,� Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said.






Notice of Revocation
of Independence


To the residents of the United States of America:

In view of your abject failure to elect a President and thus to govern yourselves, We give hereby Notice of the Revocation of your Independence, effective today at Five O'Clock Greenwich Mean Time.

Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume sovereign duties forthwith over all states, commonwealths and other territories, with notable exception of Florida, which Shall be returned to His Illustrious Catholic Majesty, King Juan Carlos of Spain.

Your new Prime Minister (The Rt. Hon Tony Blair, for the 98.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will suggest to Her Majesty a Governor-General for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

  1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing these words. In general, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (Look up "vocabulary"). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. (Look up "interspersed").
  2. There is no such thing as "U.S. English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.
  3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that difficult.
  4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast British actors as the good guys.
  5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
  6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 1.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armor). We are hoping to get together at least an American rugby sevens side by 2005.
  7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys.
  8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in the British Empire. It will be called "Indecisive Day".
  9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When We show you German cars, you will understand what We mean.
  10. Please tell Us who killed JFK. It's been driving Us crazy. Thank you for your cooperation. Welcome back,

HRH Elizabeth II






 - this one, too -





 - check yer sources, now -
GOP Will Never Say Die
In Pursuit Of Clintons
by Steve Young

The death-impaired Clinton
refused comment
March 11, 2075,

WASHINGTON -- In a move surprising almost no one, and in a response to the most recent Senate subpoena, grave diggers at Arlington National Cemetery began the unenviable task of exhuming President Bill Clinton's remains.
      The Senate hearings looking into a particle of DNA found in the Oval Office humidor, are expected to reach an elevated sense of drama and wit. The dead President is expected to receive a relentless grilling from Republican foes who seemed bent on bringing the former Commander-in-chief to his knees, contingent, of course, on whether or not his knees have yet to decompose entirely.
      It is the seventh time this century that the beleaguered former President has been dug up to answer questions concerning alleged wrong-doing, a record surpassing former five-term President Hillary Clinton's six unearthings. With cryogenics playing an ever-burgeoning part of the Republican Party's effort to humiliate the dead President, an amazing simulation of the late Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, said that, once again, "impeachment would not be out of the question."
      If the Congress and Senate are successful in their efforts, this would be Clinton's third such impeachment since his death in 2048. 172 year-old Senator Strom Thurmond, whose sustained efforts to embarrass the former president are only surpassed by his continued refusals to die, said, "President Clinton was and still is..." (The rest of his statement was unintelligible).
      The death-impaired Clinton refused comment, except for a statement released from his office which continues to insist that "...the former President is once again the target of Republican enemies who still can't run on the issues."
      From this robotic home at Disneyland's famed Hall Of Spinners, Clinton animatromnic pal James Carville said that, "...this is all a lot of Republican hooey. We all know that even dead, Bubba could whup whomever the GOP puts up against him." Carville's comments seem supported by Bill Clinton's unexpected third term in office (2060-2064), to date the only known incidence of a deceased candidate elected to the top post and serving his entire term. "His distinguished performance, considering his being a corpse, was first-rate," Carville drawled.
      With recent polls still showing the deceased Chief Executive with a 78 percent approval rating, reporters have asked the former President if he will entertain running for public office again, considering that he remains severely dead. The obviously tired -- but still enthusiastic -- Comeback Kid smiled, "it depends what your definition of dead is."






 - magic pill -
 - hippies -


 - peace, man -