Kontemptible Karl – Update!

We’ve come to this remote island, and you’ll never believe what we’ve found.  The fugitive, Rove!  (Seems he can’t hide here, either.)

Simply serve an arrest warrant, with the assistance of the local authorities, and he’ll be in U.S. custody in no time!  Find out: why he outed a CIA agent, how he targeted and harassed an “unfriendly” governor . . . all on the sly.

I’m Bill Curtis.  And I’ve just found . . . the fugitive, Rove.

Karl rove can’t hide anymore.  Get the Contempt of Congress charge back on the table, and restore this country’s Rule of Law!

(Uncle Rave has been granted full immunity for any resemblance this may have to any actual telecom commercial.)   YUR

The Kontemptible Karl Rove

If you, or I, flagrantly ignored a subpoena we’d be held in contempt of court, and we’d be facing possible jail-time.  Hiding behind the cloak of Executive Privilege – which has not formally been granted to him, yet – has become the equivalent of a neocon “Get Out of Jail Free” card.  It’s making a mockery of the Rule of Law.

Contact your Congressman by calling the Capitol Hill switchboard, at 202-224-3121, and tell him/her to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress.   YUR 

We HAVE TO Question Authority

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSBYdRRuLxI

Your Uncle Rave had the misfortune of personally watching the Twin Towers, on the morning of 9/11/2001.  He was right across the Hudson River, at Exchange Place in Jersey City, NJ.  He hates to say this, but his very first inkling was – at the very least – that our government allowed this to happen.  Since that day, the arguments that some faction of our government actually took a more active role, in the events of that morning, have gotten more and more intriguing . . . and compelling.  It’s like assembling a large jigsaw puzzle . . . that comes in a blank box.  You might not start out knowing where it’s all going . . . but, eventually the pieces begin to fall into place.  Just because we’ve all been told it happened a certain way . . . doesn’t make it necessarily so.  We, ultimately, might not like the answers that we find, but we owe it to ourselves, and to our children and grandchildren, to ask the hard questions.

The 9/11 Commission Report was far from thorough.  The 9/11 investigation needs to be re-opened, and it needs to be non-partisan, autonomous and very far reaching.  Write and call your senators and congressperson, and let them know that you want a new  and thorough investigation..

Your Uncle Rave

Hillary’s Paranoid Delusions – Part II – Post Mortem

For those of you who are familiar with this blog you may remember reading the first part, and part II, of my counter to the Clinton camp’s claim of media bias and sexism, in the Democratic primary.  I never denied that some sexist antics had taken place, but I vehemently disagreed with the assertion that the media was biased against MrsClinton, and favoring Mr Obama.  To me, that was largely a product of the Clinton camp and numerous supporters.

Some readers did not like the titles, because I’m not a psychologist, and I was “labelling” Hillary with an unflattering mental disorder.  To all the true paranoid delusionals out there I apologize.  To Hillary and company I say: I think you got what you deserved.  You guys were playing fast and loose with the emotions of the American (mostly Democrat) electorate, and I knew all along that it was just a ploy, and you didn’t REALLY believe what you were alleging.  If you had actually believed it then “paranoid delusions” would’ve been an apt description, but as it was it was just a calculated gamble from the former front-runner who was desparately trying to play catch up.

I think the following article (follow the link) provides me with a bit of vindication.  It doesn’t delve into my assertion that the Clinton camp (more obviously) played the race card, but it does shine a light on the so-called media bias.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/media-doesnt-love-obama-a_b_104596.html

For what it all is worth, at this point, Hillary lost me at “Hello”.  As the front-runner and presumptive nominee she immediately started playing to the center.  She was Bush-Lite.  She was all tough talk about how she wouldn’t meet with leaders of countries who were less than friendly with us, and she insisted on this silly semantics game when it came to explaining why she voted to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq.  She refused to apologize for it, and refused to even acknowledge it as a mistake.  (She was “mislead”)  To me this was a wrong-headed calculation to not alienate those who still thought that there was merit in our invading and occupying Iraq.  It was just more playing to the center.  To those of us who always thought that this war was illegal and immoral, from before Day 1, that kind of fence riding just didn’t fly.  When people started rejecting this type of politicking she soon lost the front-runner status, and the new catch-up role lead to what I, and many others, considered an almost classic Karl Rovian attack campaign, that only further allienated what could’ve (should’ve?) been her base.  I don’t think she’ll be selected as Veep – there was just too much animosity, and the personalities are just too big – but, I do see big things for her . . . hopefully, somewhere in the Obama cabinet.

Your Uncle Rave

Tim Russert Dead at 58

The news world was stunned today, by the very sudden death of NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.  Apparently, he was taping promos for this Sunday’s “Meet The Press” when he suddenly collapsed.

The Emmy Award winner was born May 7, 1950 in Buffalo, NY, and was a graguate of Canisius High School, John Carroll University and the Cleveland Marshall College of Law.  Besides being a reporter he was also a member of the bar in New York and D.C.

His first job after finishing law school was as a staff operative for the Daniel Moynahan senate campaign in 1976.  And, in 1982 he also worked on Mario Cuomo’s Gubernatorial campaign.  He joined NBC News in 1984 and eventually worked his way up to hosting “Meet The Press” in December of 1991.

Tim Russert wrote two books:  “Big Russ and Me” in 2004, about his relationship with his father, and “Wisdom of Our Fathers” in 2006, both of which made it to the New York Times best-sellers list.

Despite looking like the twin brother of Randy Quaid – Tim Russert was highly respected in his field.  Tom Brokaw called him “one of the premier political journalists and anlaysts of his time”.  Myself, and others, had recently complained about his fawning over Hillary Clinton’s primary victories, but he was widely known as a tough, but fair interviewer.

He is survived by his wife, Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair Magazine and by his son Luke, who had just recently graduated from Boston College.

Hillary’s Paranoid Delusions – Part II

Being neither black, nor a woman, I feel I can look at the situation fairly objectively.  Some “individuals” in the media may have demonstrated some form of an anti-woman bias, but a few individuals do not constitute “the media”.  And please, don’t bring up anybody from FOX “News” as an example of Hillary/sexist bashing, because EVERYONE knows the agenda of THAT network. 
 
I have seen just as much of an empty bias, in favor of Hillary, from some very prominent women in the media.  Maureen Dowd, for example, writes as though Hillary Clinton is the female messiah, and that the presidency is – somehow – her divine right.  Even Gwen Ifill – who I generally admire – has a hard time concealing her obvious bias towards Hillary. 
 
And, it’s not just women in the media.  After both the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries Tim Russert could hardly contain himself, he was so happy for Hillary!  And, all the unqualified adjectives (some superlative) that the media used in describing (the few) Clinton victories showed me that “the media” was NOT favoring Obama.  As a matter of fact, though conveniently forgotten, prior to Obama’s upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, he was actually trailing in New Hampshire polls.  But, in the days following Iowa, all of a sudden, the polls had him ahead by nearly 9 % points?!?!  This set up Hillary’s “upset” victory, that the media then ballyhooed, despite the fact that she won by a mere 3%.  In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary she had as much as a 22% lead over Obama, but when Hillary won by 9.4% the media acted as though it were a major coup.  For a few days they were still crowing about it being a “double digit” victory, when it was known on Wednesday morning that she didn’t crack 10%, which still reflected a drop in support of 12+%.  New York (favorite daughter), Ohio and Pennsylvania set the stage for Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.  In Indiana Obama led Clinton by “a statistically-insignificant 45% to 43%, with 7% undecided and a 3.9% margin of error”, yet her 1.12% victory was also hailed as a major upset by the very media that is allegedly against her, and for Obama.  And, with West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama realized that his chances of any kind of enlightenment of those states’ – predominantly non-educated, working class, white – voters were slim to none, so he focused his energies on the primaries where he at least stood a chance of winning.  In most political circles, this is considered good strategy.  Clinton’s victories in those two states were predictable, especially considering the not so subtle race card she had been playing since the Ohio primary.  And, yet again, the nasty sexist media somehow found a way to heap the superlatives for those victories of hers that were always forgone conclusions to begin with.  Adjectives, such as “Trounce” and “Landslide” for these particular states could just as easily have been replaced with “Duh”. 

Some feel that Hillary is the only one who can carry the South.  On the contrary, Obama has actually won more southern contests than Clinton.  (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri)  The only southern states that Hillary won were Tennessee, Kentucky (two “Duh” states), Arkansas (former favorite daughter), and Florida.  And, Florida was predictable, considering its constituency, and doesn’t count, regardless, because they (like Michigan) ignored the rules and held unsanctioned primaries. 
 
In my mind it has been just too easy for some to make the sexist allegations.  Women, who seem to value feminism, over everything else, are all too willing to make mountains out of the molehills.  It helps in casting themselves as the oppressed, because it allows them to claim “a” (not “the”) moral high ground.  Hillary’s core supporters (other than the race-baited “hard-working whites”) are the white women, who are generally 50 and over.  They lived through the big feminist movement that ran from the latter ’60s through the early ’80s.  They are more in tune with the disappointment of the failure of not passing the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).  In my opinion, these supporters are wearing blinders that allow them a very narrow focus, but prohibit them from seeing all that is going on around them.  I applaud those who have had the courage to remove those blinders, and I hope and pray that more of them will find that same courage.

Sexism and racism are, unfortunately, still factors in our society, and for that matter most of the world.  It’s clear to me, as it should be clear to others, which candidate is playing up the bias angle, and which one is trying to reach out to the broadest spectrum of the electorate. 

Your Uncle Rave

Hillary’s Paranoid Delusions

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, loves a good conspiracy theory better than Your Uncle Rave!  But, as I listen to various comments from Hillary, and Bill, and some of Hillary’s campaign people and supporters, I alternately scratch my noggin, and/or laugh out loud, in utter disbelief of what I’m hearing.

Obama has been playing the gender card???  Geraldine Ferraro seems to think so.  She says she may not vote for Obama if (when) he becomes the party’s nominee, because he has acted “terribly sexist”.  And she’s not the only one threatening the Democratic party with this newest form of blackmail.  On Nightline, two nights ago, there was a woman campaigner/supporter from Ohio, who echoed this exact same insanity.  She stated that she WILL vote for John McCain, if Hillary does not receive the nomination!  I wonder if she’s familiar with the phrase: “cutting ones nose off to spite one’s face”?  I’ve heard some of their reasoning for saying that the press is too tolerant of some of the sexist signs and comments that have met the Clinton campaign.  (They claim the guy with the “Iron My Shirt” sign, in New Hampshire(?), did not receive sufficient condemnation!)   But, the only specifics about any Obama remarks are that he uttered the words “now the claws come out”,  in regards to some nastiness from the Clinton campaign, and he once referred to a female reporter as “sweetie”.  From what I’ve seen and heard the reporter took no offense.  And, (conveniently?) there was no mention of whether this reporter was a stranger to Obama, or whether the two enjoy a friendly rapport.

It’s looking more and more like some so-called *feminists* are just far too comfortable in bandying the charge of “misogynist”.  (It’s like their very own “Anti-Semite”.)  If someone doesn’t adhere to your unassailable dogma then you’ll assign them the ultimate Bad Guy label!  All these hystrionics – for lack of a better word – need to cease.  It’s doing absolutely nothing to bring the Democratic party together.  These sour grapes are only counter-productive to the task at hand . . . rescuing OUR country, from a third Bush term.

I had intended to infuse this commentary with much more humor, but the infuriating disgust aspect kind of took over.  For a much more humorous take on this issue – from a real writer – I heartily recommend the following commentary from Dana Milbank.  It appeared in the May 28th, 2008 edition of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001915.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008052002278

Your Uncle Rave!

Special Interest Money Says So Much

Barack Obama seems to be able to raise money mainly through small donors.  Why is is that John McCain has such a large reliance on the lobbyists?  Which candidate would be more accountable to the people if elected?  Which one of them would be more beholdin’ to big business and special interests?  Hmmmm!!!

I just received this, today.  It kind of takes me back to “Stand By Me” (the movie).  (Because I’m WAY too young, to actually remember this song.)  I think you’ll enjoy it.  Give it a listen (watch).

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysj0bMFAeXc&eurl=http://www.firethelobbyists.com/

Your Uncle Rave!

John McCain!

War Hero Sells Out For A Chance At Immortality!

It is just SO sad, because back in 1999 – 2000 I was willing, presuming he was going to win (which he should have) the Republican nomination, to accept this man as my President.  Eight years later . . . I wouldn’t vote for him for dog catcher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Your Uncle Rave

 

 

Language Abuse

You all know about: child abuse, spousal abuse, elder abuse, patient abuse, employee abuse and animal abuse.  Those are some of the unfortunate ills that plague our society.  As ugly as they are they’re pretty straightforward and obvious.  There’s nothing subtle about those kind of abuses.  But, what about something that is more subtle and insidious?  What about language abuse?  No.  I’m not talking about abusive language.  (That takes it’s toll on a society, as well.  But, that’s a topic for a different discussion.)   I’m talking about abusing the written and spoken word.

Language abuse is almost always done with a kind of emphasis, and/or inflection, to connote a negative meaning to a word that wasn’t designed – in any way – as a negative.  It isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, but we’re seeing it more and more, in the media and in politics – especially in politics.

Probably, THE most classic example of this is the word “liberal”.  Traditionally, it’s an adjective.  Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber  free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free.  Synonyms include: generous, bountiful, munificent, openhanded, and broad-minded.  (Courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online)  All pretty positive, no matter how you look at it, right?

But, when someone repeatedly and continuously says the word with an audible sneer in their voice it soon takes on a totally different meaning.  Many people are very suggestible.  When they hear a word constantly being used, with such disdain, they eventually associate it with something bad.  These pseudo-wordsmiths will even drag out the word, for added affect.  “Llliberal!!!”  It’s like you’re calling someone a criminal, or a leper, or some other kind of person to be avoided.  It’s actually pretty comical, except that it’s only too effective, as a kind of conditioning tactic.  It’s a very manipulative tool in training the suggestible.

But the latest abused word is “cling”.  You know, as in “they cling to guns and religion”.  Hillary Clinton was the first to try to demonize the word.  She wanted to make hay, and score some politcal points with working class whites (with limited education), by taking the line completely out of context.  But, she really went out of her way to stress the word “cling”.  As though “1 a: to hold together b: to adhere as if glued firmly c: to hold or hold on tightly or tenaciously 2 a: to have a strong emotional attachment or dependence” was a bad thing.  I think most of the people, being referred to in Obama’s speech, are actually proud to hold on tightly to guns and religion.

But, the way that Hillary stressed the word was to try to evoke “clingy”, which denotes more of an emotional dependence than a strong adherence.  So, when you take the line out of it’s context AND stress a word, in a misleading way, it makes what Obama said sound like an insult.  But, in reality what Obama was saying is that the federal government has let these people down, for so long, that they really don’t have a whole lot to hang on to.

If you haven’t heard the line in it’s proper context this what he actually said.   “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.  And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  He was explaining the frustrations of the working class Americans, and how the government has let them down.  But the opportunistic wordsmiths saw an opportunity to exploit a few words (and a line) to their advantage, and to the speaker’s disadvantage.  And in doing so, actually exploit the very people that it’s referring to.

Hillary may have started this one, but John McCain – and his camp – are eagerly playing this up, to make Obama sound like an elitist who can’t relate to the working class.  You will be hearing this clinging remark repeatedly, leading up to the November election, because they’re pretty darn sure that enough people will be taken in by the way they have chosen to frame it.

These are just a couple examples of language abuse.  There are, and there will be, plenty more where these come from.  If we consider all the other types of abuse as criminal maybe we should consider those who – so flagrantly – abuse language as criminals.

Your Uncle Rave