HolyMoly

I found Al-Jazeera's take on the individual candidates a lot more even-handed than what I've seen in the Western media. Kind of refreshing, actually. Bush appears to be attempting to lock up certain niches of the electorate - Latinos (with his immigrant amnesty deal) and non-unionized white-collar workers (the Labor Department scuttling of overtime for some blue-collar workers). But in doing so, he's also scuttling good relations with conservatives in his own party ... so much so that he might even convince some of them to vote for a (ulp) Democrat.

When I was growing up in rural Eastern Oregon in the early 1960s, I watched a CBS News special on the Ku Klux Klan. During the special, they played a song that had become popular in Oklahoma at the time. FWIW, as the song was playing, I heard my step-dad "humming" along to it ... as if he already knew it. He was the most racist person I knew when I was growing up ... referring to blacks as niggers, Jews as kikes, Latinos a spics or wetbacks, and Catholics as papists. And, though I found no direct proof of it, I had every suspicion that he was a member of the Klan himself. In any case, I didn't remember the name of the song but assumed it was the last line of the song's refrain ... which I did remember: America for whites, Africa for blacks, Keep those monkeys in the trees, Ship those niggers back So, a few years ago when I first used KLite, I decided to see if I could find a song titled "Ship Those Niggers Back." Not only did I find it, I found it was being shared by a LOT of different users. The artist's name (or pseudonym) was Johnny Rebel. And, when I did a search for Johnny Rebel, the results screen filled with shared songs ... with titles like "Who Likes A Nigger," "Nigger-Hatin' Me," "Cajun KKK," etc., etc., ad nauseum. FWIW, I just did a check and found 114 songs by Johnny Rebel being shared. Johnny Rebel's real name is "C. J. Trahan" and he's still alive and making music. Here's an article about him published just last year: http://www.letthemeatlead.com/archives/iss...johnnyrebel.htm But Johnny Rebel is just the tip of a very big iceberg of "hate music" currently making the rounds today. Below is a link to a list compiled by the Antidefamation League: Bigots Who Rock - An ADL List of Hate Music Groups by Country

I'm watching CSPAN's coverage of a Senate hearing on the Department of Labor's upcoming rule changes that could force many people to lose overtime benefits (but extend overtime benefits to 1.3 million "white collar" workers who currently don't get overtime). Elaine Chou, Secretary of Labor, is on the hot seat. Senator Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) seems to be her only friend. Patty Murray (D-Washington) is taking potshots at the vagueness of the proposed rules. But, her biggest and most dangerous foe appears to be Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Specter is on the Subcommittee For Labor & Health and (ulp) claims that Chou has "stiffed" him on appointments to discuss the proposal. Chou said, point blank, that the proposed changes would have no effect on labor agreements. But Murray (and impliedly, Specter) reminded her that the only reason major employers put overtime clauses into their agreements with labor is because current Labor Department rules mandate them. Remove the mandate and "future" labor agreements would take on an entirely different light. Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer, is now testifying to that effect ... and is not a happy camper. March could be an interesting month ... since that is when the "final proposal" for rules changes is due. If these rules become law, I suspect it will be a nail in the coffin of a 2nd term for President Bush. I'm frankly surprised that Bush would allow his Labor Secretary to tamper with such things during an election year. Even Republicans (Specter is just one) are beginning to worry. No wonder. The entire House of Representatives and a full one-third of the Senate are up for re-election this year as well. If Bush ticks off organized labor too much, he'll lose his value as a spokesman to help fellow Republicans in their Senate/House races. And, voters may extend blame to their Senate/House Republicans. Bush's popularity ratings are high in areas of security. But security may not be enough of a factor to sustain that popularity if too many middle class workers feel disenfranchised by the administration and a Republican controlled legislative branch. P.S. Want a different view of the 2004 Presidential election? Visit THIS PAGE to see a rundown on the candidates ... from the viewpoint of Al-Jazeera.

Iran has received their first brush with broadband. Although until now there have been dial-up providers, this is the first opportunity to connect via broadband. ADA, a division of Iran Telecommunications says there will be connectivity in homes and motels across Iran in a few months. * Read the article. * - Paragraph added by admin

This is an excerpt from a Washington Post article: Click here for the entire article. U.S. politics may be a bit stuffy at times but it's always entertaining, hehe.

NITV has started taking a poll of how their viewers (some of them in Iran, some of them exiles) feel change will come about. Here are the results as of 5:26 PM today.

Too bad he's Canadian. This would be a great case for the ACLU, hehe. Just because someone owns a big software corporation doesn't mean they should have the right to tell people they can't use their own names publically in business just because they "sound" like the corporation's name. I think the kid's lawyer should just tell Microsoft to go fish ... and let Microsoft risk the incredibly bad P.R. image they'd end up with for going after a kid for something as nonsensical as this.

A 17 year-old Canadian entrepreneur named Mike Rowe started his own website ... named MikeRoweSoft.com. Now, Microsoft is bullying the kid, saying that using his own name is violating their rights. Read the following story and weep. http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/technol...660/detail.html

That does it. If a professional spoon-bender says Michael Jackson is innocent, he must be innocent.

FWIW, my broadband ISP just released their own VoIP service plan ... and boy, does it suck big time, hehe. Not one of their three offerings includes an anytime/anyday rate for long distance ... and their cheapest plan is still more expensive than my Vonage plan and has connection fees ON TOP of it!!! Jeez Louise, if they're trying to "compete" with Vonage or any other plan, they're doing an incredibly lousy job of it.

Those two quotes call into question whether or not we can fully appreciate their troubles. The pro-reform party is called the League of Combatant Clerics. Apparently, the Guardian Council has completed their "review" of the disqualified candidates and has chosen to stand firm: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/7744503.htm I think that only an Iranian can appreciate the depth of this divide. But, it's clear that feces is about to hit the fan. I'm closely watching NITV's site (the Iranian-exile satellite station in Southern California) and the English Al-Jazeera site for their take on this. They've not yet commented on the Guardian Council's decision to stand firm.

You can change the color of a Cheerios box from yellow to red ... but inside the box, you've still got Cheerios. I don't really see much different on their new site than what I saw on their old site. It's just coded differently.

We may be on the verge of seeing a revolution in Iran. Reformers, led by Iran's President (Khatami) are now in direct odds with the Islamic hardline Guardian Council ... which disqualified over 1,000 reformist candidates in an upcoming election. The reformers are now beginning the 2nd week of a "sit-in" in Parliament ... threatening to boycott the upcoming election. The hardliners do have part of the military on their side ... but the reformers are confident that the majority of the military is on their side. Here's the CNN version of current events. The Guardian Council is squarely between a rock and a hard place. If they continue to disqualify reformist candidates, they risk a violent revolution. If they don't, they risk a nonviolent revolution. I suspect it will all boil down to how much GC members want to live ... since, if there's a violent revolution and the reformists prevail, there might be a few "heads on poles" (meant literally).

Last week, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show and heard him get roundly embarrassed by a Wesley Clark supporter. Limbaugh was railing about Clark's speech he made a couple of years ago, purportedly supporting Bush (or any President) using pre-emptive force ... and saying his current stand on Iraq constituted a "flip-flop." The Clark supporter called up and read the "rest" of the speech, where Clark said the reasons for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq were not there yet ... proving that Limbaugh (and other neo-cons) were taking Clark's comments out of context. The supporter was still reading the remainder of the speech when Limbaugh hung up on him (hehe), then said something along the lines of "You're confusing the facts with lies" (snicker) ... and how HE (Limbaugh) had been in the "business" long enough to know when he was hearing lies. Then, very quickly, Limbaugh changed the subject to Howard Dean, hehe. Normally. Limbaugh is quicker than that about hanging up on people calling him out. I think he's slowing down a bit, hehe.

I've got a lot of sympathy for McCartney and others bothered by paparazzi. Frankly, I think paparazzi activities should be punishable under stalking laws. Celebrities should expect public interest ... but being followed around, day and night, can easily get out of hand ... and no celebrity should be made to feel like a prisoner in their own home in order to enjoy privacy. I'm also surprised there haven't been any paparazzi "deaths." I know that, about a year ago, someone was taking photos from a plane above some actor's estate and the plane was shot at. What really surprises me, though, is that some famous/rich celebrity hasn't done a "tit-for-tat" ... paying someone to follow a "paparazzi" around day and night -- hanging around their homes, taking photos of them and their family members (even through the windows of their homes) -- and making their lives hell. As the old saying goes, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Certainly, paparazzi photographers would sound silly complaining about their privacy being violated when violating the privacy of others is their business. Heck, hehe, that would make a great website. Imagine a bunch of stars get together and launch a "Paparazzi Dirt" website ... hiring private investigators to take photos of them and their families day and night, relentlessly - and do background checks on them to find every scrap of dirt they can and publishing it all online. And, if a paparazzi or paparazzi's spouse has a particularly disburbing past (crimes or indiscretions), they could print out the facts and make certain his/her neighbors receive copies of them. Stars may have skeletons in their closets ... but I'd bet that even paparazzi photographers (or their spouses) have a few skeletons in theirs, too.