Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
And the "left" progressives have, agaaaaain, dutifully written their condemnation and avoidance of celebrating George Washington and any other president "who profited from trafficking in and ownership of human beings." According to Freedom Rider "The celebration is not for anyone who is committed to truth telling." Because folks, Washington was "one of the godfathers of the human bondage Mafia..."
The original rich old white man? the root cause of all world problems ... bro.
The condemnistas include brief quotes from Washington documents about pursuing a runaway slave, or quotes from "truth telling" professors who compete to interpret history as egregiously as they possibly can. They mention George's wealth, acreage, number of slaves, his aristocratic lifestyle based on slave labor. I don't think I've ever seen anyone accuse GW of raping his female slaves but that may only be because there were no mulattos attributed to the sterile president. George did seem to be strict about morality and principles, notwithstanding the ownership of human beings.
(None mention the personal letters between Washington and his aide, Tobias Lear, when George was attempting to sell off most of his holdings at Mt. Vernon and willed a portion of his estate to free slaves, set up pensions for them, teach them to read, write, and a trade, etc. Historians give various reasons for his decision, ranging from an old man's guilt, to a recognition that abolition was inevitable if the US was to survive, to an act of personal generosity toward those who had served him during his life.)
But from the "left" progressives - this is your heritage American whitey. Do not commemorate this evil, devious, old goodfella from the bondage Mafia. Whatever contributions George made on the plus side for the grand experiment in freedom - let us cherry-pick from biased sources and dwell forever on "the man's" offensive negatives; call it truth telling.
Posted by Kate-A at 9:49 AM
Saturday, February 19, 2011
WASHINGTON – A bipartisan trio of senators has introduced a new cybersecurity bill that eliminates the president's authority to switch off the Internet.
The "kill switch," as it's known, exists in the 1934 Telecommunications Act, which was amended in 1996. It gives the president powers to shut off all regulated telecommunications if he or she deems it vital to national security interests.
But that's not going to fly any more, say Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE) and Susan Collins (R-ME).
-------------- Remember about 2001 to 2008 the left circulated stories that Dubya would shut down the internet because it was a threat to his regime, the net was a "new era of outreach and information for the common man" ... that average folks would use this newfound tool of knowledge to unite and challenge the status quo. 'Course, all that outreach and info and uniting only gave us Obama and more quo.
Too many ISPs and too much economic activity for any US president to use a "kill switch." And if by some snowball in hell chance TPTB deemed a telecommunication blackout necessary it would be done legitimately as an emergency act, with certain websites and networks having their plug pulled (gamers and porn addicts are safe). Or just have Big Business refuse to host offending websites (e.g. Amazon/Wikileaks). No need to kill the entire internet.
Joe, Tom, Suzie - busy work, defined as a time consuming activity, but not useful (written by staffers, I'm sure Joe, Tom, Suzie have not read their own bill).
Posted by Kate-A at 8:36 AM
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Okay, lets talk about Egypt. The first neighbor who said anything to me says the riots/protests in Egypt are the US fault. Blame America first I guess. We support a tyrant/dictator, etc., Egyptians want freedom/democracy, etc.
The usual phrases from those who prefer to think their sorry life, and the world's problems, are due to the machinations of rich, old, American white men.
The self-titled 21st century-socialist, Hugo Chavez, says US role in Egypt is shameful. "Now you are seeing comments from Washington and some European nations. As President Gaddafi said to me, it's shameful, it makes you kind of sick to see the meddling of the U.S., wanting to take control."
Yessirr, Chavez, (ruling for 12 years and counting) and Gaddafi (Libyan ruler since 1969 and counting) think it's shameful. The US wants to take control. Yes, Chavez and Gaddafi say so. And who better to understand how control works than tinpots of the world united.
What's shameful is the extra billions Chavez is making because of the "Egypt effect" on oil prices. But, even Chavez is tiptoeing around this "crisis" in Egypt, none of his fiery speeches in support of Egyptian protestors or claiming he smells sulfur. Hugo is sitting on the fence until he sees which "ism" looks like a winner. Besides, his advisers know too much "Egypt effect" could trigger a world recession and drive down oil prices, and Hugo's checkbook popularity.
Long live the struggling masses who can take control of vast resources and use them to benefit themselves. How many times have we heard that in the last 100 years? Workers of the world unite - for permanent revolution. Yawn. You can bury the bodies in the forest and swear you don't know where they are.
Let Egypt trade one despot for another and call it freedom (or socialism) or winning, or whatever.
Is there any truth that the Muslim Brotherhood may come to power in Egypt? Sure there is. The country is 90% Muslim. Since the assassination of Sadat, groups like al-Jihad and Gamaat have waged military style campaigns against the government. Usually using the police as their targets. Their goal - to bring down Mubarak's regime and install their own Islamic ruled Egypt. Such "revolutions" are always done by promise of using a country's vast resources to uplift the poor and punish the rich. Never works out that way but you can always count on the masses not to know that.
Hmmm... can you think of any other country where cops are the hated "enemy" and oppressors? Works the same all over huh.
Oh god, does an Egyptian revolution mean another era of almost broke white lefty backpackers roaming around pyramids in support of the localistas? And blogging about it? Groan.
Remember, the US "left" supported the Iranian revolution in 1979 against Shah Pahlavi, the "US puppet" in Iran. Iran has not had much uplifting since, but the "left" had other revolutions to support and chant for.
When discussing the crisis, don't forget to soap-box on Tunisia and Arab reawakening nationalism as being in the revolutionary mix, blah blah blah, and always remind folks that the US spends billions to mubarakish dictators to suppress their own people. And if you lean too far to the right you can tell folks that US/Egypt involvement is also some sort of racist expansionist Zionist plot.
There is never a shortage of someone or another struggling against rich old white men. Surely, you are willing to lower your standard of living in order to free Egypt, no? Oh, wait, no one explained how that works at your last solidarity get-together?
Posted by Kate-A at 9:09 AM