Friday, February 20, 2009

Jobless Rate Rises, Stock Market Dives

The employment market and the stock market both took major hits Thursday, with new jobless claims registering as high as 627,000 and market indicators like the Dow Jones industrial average and the Nasdaq composite index dipping alarmingly low.


AP via MercuryNews.com:

The jobless numbers were worse than expected and new projections from the Federal Reserve show unemployment rising for the rest of this year.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number of people receiving regular unemployment benefits rose 170,000 to 4.99 million for the week ending Feb. 7, marking the fourth consecutive week those receiving benefits have been at a record level on data going back to 1967.

The continuing claims figure also was significantly above the year-ago level of 2.77 million and underscored the difficulty people are having in this recession finding another job once they are laid off.

An additional 1.5 million people are receiving benefits under an extended unemployment compensation program approved by Congress last year, bringing the total number of people receiving unemployment benefits to 6.54 million for the week ending Feb. 7.

“The labor market is in disarray,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. It’s possible that job losses for all of February could total between 700,000 and 750,000 based on what weekly claims have done so far this month, he added.

Employers slashed a net total of 598,000 jobs in January, the

The Shoe-Thrower Speaks


Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi, who quickly became renowned throughout the world after chucking his shoes at President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad last December, took the stand in court Thursday to defend his memorable act as a gesture of self-expression, on behalf of both himself and “the Iraqi people.”


The Washington Post:

Throwing his shoes, fastball style, at the leader of the free world was not, Zaidi argued, a crime.

Zaidi, 30, who is charged with assaulting a foreign head of state, posited that Bush’s Dec. 14 trip to Baghdad was not an official visit by a foreign dignitary because he arrived in the country without prior notice and didn’t leave the Green Zone, which at the time was still under U.S. control.

“I am charged now with attacking the prime minister’s guest,” he said stoically, making his first public remarks since the incident. “We Arabs are famous for being generous with guests. But Bush and his soldiers have been here for six years. Guests should knock on the door. Those who come sneaking in are not guests.”


Health Care Reform Can’t Wait

y Bill Boyarsky

Who needs Tom Daschle? The national health care crisis, intensified by the recession, is so bad that nothing can be permitted to stop reform of the system, not even the implosion of the former Senate Democratic leader. Daschle, remember, was paid big speaking fees by the health business before President Barack Obama chose him to lead the health reform fight.

After losing his South Dakota seat in 1994, Daschle began a lucrative career based on his connections. He was an important early Obama supporter. He knew the Senate and understood the health care issue. But early this month he withdrew as Obama’s nominee for secretary of health and human services. He had failed to pay taxes on a car and driver provided him by the founder of a private equity firm where he worked as a high-priced consultant. The position had brought him, according to Politico, more than $2 million in fees. Politico also reported that Daschle received more than $200,000 for speeches to health care industry groups that will be affected by health care legislation.

Daschle paid more than $100,000 in back taxes for use of the car, but not soon enough to save his nomination.

That’s the way it works for financially ambitious officials who feel impoverished by the limitations of public service. After leaving the Clinton White House and before his election to Congress, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made $16.2 million as an investment banker, according to The New York Times. And Richard Holbrooke, a former high-level diplomat, was vice chairman of an investment firm before becoming Obama’s special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Jodi Kantor of the Times reported Holbrooke had “what friends say was a relatively undemanding job and lavish compensation.”

Daschle’s entrance into this privileged world would have passed hardly noticed if tax troubles of other Obama appointees had not made the news.

And there was the opaque role of an old Daschle foe, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. His committee was screening Daschle’s nomination, and though Baucus eventually said something supportive about his old colleague, it took him a couple of days to do it.

Baucus’ slow reaction wasn’t surprising, considering his relationship with Daschle, as described by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada in his book “The Good Fight.” Reid wrote that “Baucus was the only Westerner to vote against Daschle in his race for Democratic leader in 1994, which Daschle had only won by a single vote, and they had been driven farther apart on the issue of taxes. ... [T]hey really couldn’t stand each other. …”

The Finance Committee will shape the health reform legislation in the Senate. Now Baucus, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy, will determine its fate. Baucus has proposed a combination public-private health plan along the lines of Obama’s.

Baucus said he doesn’t think Daschle’s absence will hurt health care reform. “I don’t think it sets it back very much at all,” he told NPR. “Tom Daschle is a terrific fellow. He knows more about health care than anyone else. But there is such momentum now for health care reform. The stars seemed so aligned.” (In politics, it should be explained, everyone is “a fine fellow” or “my good friend,” no matter how much dislike might exist.)

But what kind of health plan will emerge?

The best health reform would be something along the lines of Medicare, an excellent program for those over 65 in which doctors bill the government. We should have Medicare for everybody, administered by the government and without insurance companies involved. Anyone on Medicare will tell you how well it works.
It is, pure and simple, government health insurance. Advocates call it “single payer” in an effort to defang critics of government involvement. But the “single payer” is the government, supported by our tax dollars. It’s simple, it works—and we’re probably years away from it.

I talked about this with Dr. Len Nichols, health policy director for the New American Foundation, who has been involved in every recent effort to fix the health system, including the unsuccessful Clinton health initiative of 1993-94. “I want a bill passed,” he said. But he conceded the lobbying power of the insurance companies, which will fight any move to keep them out of the system. “We can’t get from here to there without the private insurers,” he said.

Nichols has been working with Sen. Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat from Oregon who has a plan that would take employers out of the health insurance mix. You’d buy coverage from state and regional insurance pools. Insurance companies would compete for business in the pools. Insurers would have to cover everybody. Everybody would be required to be insured, with full and partial subsidies for the low-income and the unemployed.

This is just one proposal in the mix, but it seems to have more legs than most of the others because Wyden’s co-author is a conservative Republican, Bob Bennett of Utah. Seven other Republicans have joined Bennett as co-sponsors of the bill. Seven Democrats have signed up with Wyden.
Nobody knows what will come out of this. But with more people losing their jobs every day—and their health insurance—fear is spreading through the land. The many interests vested in the present system will fight to prevent change.

But logic leans toward the sentiments of Sen. Baucus and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., whose House Energy and Commerce Committee will also have a major role in drafting the legislation. “We need to get this job accomplished this year and get the bill to the president,” Waxman told Families USA, a liberal health reform group.

Health care reform is what Obama promised during the campaign. He made the pledge with increasing emotion as the recession worsened during the fall.

Despite the need, it won’t be easy. The ease with which Daschle moved from his position as a Senate health care reformer to a paid speechmaker for health business groups shows how deep this industry’s tentacles extend and how high they reach.

the case 4 big govt

Zachary Karabell

With Congress passing a nearly $800 billion spending and tax-cut bill and with the Federal Reserve taking trillions onto its balance sheet, we are if nothing else plunging into a new era of big government. The extent of these actions would have been unthinkable even six months ago, and the scale of these measures—as well as the fact that they are probably the first of many—has taken many by surprise. Even those who have been advocating for years that the federal government play a more active role in addressing economic imbalances and inequalities could not have predicted or imagined what has happened of late.

It is both Jeff Madrick’s fortune and misfortune to have “The Case for Big Government” published in this climate. Madrick has for many years been a voice crying in the wilderness. His essays in The New York Review of Books in particular have been acerbic and astute critiques of the absurd and glaring inequities of modern American laissez-faire capitalism. Some of the current spending plans, as well as the ideological shift in Washington away from the dogmatisms of the past, are a vindication of much of what he has been championing for years.

book cover

The Case for Big Government

By Jeff Madrick

Princeton University Press, 224 pages

Buy the book

Unfortunately for his book, however, events have somewhat overtaken him. While it’s likely that Madrick prefers reality to have changed even at the expense of his book sales, he is nonetheless a victim of timing. One obvious indication that events have overtaken his argument? He makes an impassioned case for government spending of 3 percent of GDP a year on a variety of social, employment and infrastructure programs, which would amount to about $400 billion a year. A year ago, that was a bold call that even he knew would be met with skepticism and resistance. Today, it is half of what Congress has just authorized.

Still, even though government spending has increased, it’s unclear that public attitudes about government have changed much. As Madrick notes, the past decades have been defined by “an ideological antagonism toward government.” While that was cemented most notably by Ronald Reagan, it became even more ingrained under centrist Democrats led by Bill Clinton, who famously declared the end of the era of big government. Yet, says Madrick, the central tenet of the anti-government argument—namely the belief that government impedes economic growth—has never been proved.

“If the case made that big government is detrimental to economic growth is as simple and unambiguous as some economists and political commentators claim it is … the statistical evidence should be easy to demonstrate and virtually impossible to refute.” Madrick points to Western Europe as well as periods in U.S. history in which there has been aggressive government intervention to show that, indeed, the argument against government rests more on ideology than fact.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that more government in and of itself creates growth, a fact which Madrick acknowledges. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Madrick spends a considerable portion of his brief book showing that there never was a “laissez-faire” ethos in the United States and that government has always been woven into the economy, a fact that should be obvious. That said, he is perhaps too quick to dismiss the strong anti-government currents that have coursed through the American past. It has never been either-or, and in seeking to show how involved government has always been, Madrick risks supplanting one caricature with another.

The heart of his argument is that the rise of income inequality in the United States was intimately connected to the waning of government and its delegitimization by conservatives. Particularly troubling has been the economic fate of men. “The U.S. economy no longer raises the income of workers the way it once did … and has profoundly affected the fortunes and prospects of males.” Madrick goes on to cite a litany of statistics about wage stagnation over the past three and a half decades, statistics that are familiar talking points on the left and dismissed as sour grapes on the right, especially since overall economic growth has been steady during this time (at least until now).

The issue as Madrick sees it lies with the harm that wage stagnation and declining standards of living do for the American dream. He adamantly rejects the notion that things like cars and televisions are luxuries and makes an effective case that they are in fact necessities that are required for one to be a full participant in contemporary American society. Furthermore, amid yawning gaps between rich and poor and the insecurity that tens of millions feel because of soaring health care costs and tenuous wages, there has been “an erosion of faith in American fairness” which threatens to undermine society.

It’s hard to argue with the sentiment, but there is something, well, sentimental about that perspective. The notion of an idyllic American dream that has been undermined takes a brief moment of the 1950s when all seemed well with the world (except for those pesky McCarthyite witch hunts and fear of nuclear annihilation) as the set point for the American psyche. It is not, and while the belief that the future will offer more growth and more affluence than the present was ingrained for part of the mid-20th century, it has not always been so clear or simple. Some Americans—especially immigrant groups defined by religious creed—looked to America as a land where they could worship unmolested by government, not as a place where their children would enjoy more material prosperity

Madrick has a particular view of what constitutes the American dream, and the irony is that it is every bit as materialistic as the right that he excoriates. His ideas for what to do are predicated on the belief that “rapid economic growth remains among the nation’s most potent weapons for spreading opportunity, freedom and democracy.” But one could argue that the very goal of “rapid economic growth” is what has fueled the crises of recent decades, including the Internet bubble of the 1990s and the housing and credit bubbles.

book cover

The Case for Big Government

By Jeff Madrick

Princeton University Press, 224 pages

Buy the book

The United States finds itself in an increasingly affluent and competitive world, where growth is not quite as easy as it was when there was a continent to conquer or a post-World War II world to rescue and protect. There is a case to be made that this phenomenon, more than lack of government, has eroded the standard of living and benefited those who have access to global capital over those who labor and work, hence the massive income inequalities. There are forces at work, in short, other than good policies or bad policies, good ideologies and destructive ones. It is undoubtedly true, as Madrick aptly demonstrates, that the case against big government has always rested on the flimsiest of foundation, and now at least, with crisis at hand, few are making that case with the same vigor of yore.

But one key issue few have addressed is that our current plight will lead to less ability for our society as a whole—government included—to unilaterally determine its own fate, and that all of the new and future spending programs do not and will not change that. Big government, small government, the United States is unlikely to return to what defined much of its history, which was independence from outside forces. Today, our government can spend what Madrick demands only because China is willing to lend us the money. That is a radical departure with radical and not yet understood implications. Madrick’s argument for big government has carried the day, but it is a fight of the last war, a passionate case made by a critic whose arguments have been vindicated but designed for a world that is receding into the past.

Zachary Karabell is president of River Twice Research and a commentator on CNBC’s “Fast Money.”

Gary Lamourboy, 2009

"I AM MY HIGHEST POWER

"RISE AND SHINE

Rise ritually! Be deliberate, regular, & scheduled.
Shine! See the light! Turn on! Tune in! Use the lights!
Focus on my goals! Prioritize; plan ahead, step by step, towards that future I see myself living.
Recommit first to me, my peace, my serenity, my good health and happiness!
Only then will I make commitments in good faith to others.

MY FOCUS

I am a good, strong, honest man, and will remain confident in that today.
I will not turn coward before its difficulties or prove recreant to its duties.
I choose to live honestly and fearlessly, that no outward failure will dishearten me,
Or take away the joy of conscious integrity.
The eyes of my soul are wide open, I see goodness in all things.
My heart is clean. Within it, I hold the truth and true light.
I set an example for others. My outward spirit, joy, and gladness is inspiring,
And I lend my strengths to those who are less fortunate.
I choose to remain sweet and sound of heart,
Despite others ingratitude, treachery, or meanness.
I will not react to their little stings, or get even.
I will not lose faith in good, honest people.
I am the decider, and the deliverer! I am the better man!


MY RESOLVE

I will live a simple, sincere, and serene life,
Promptly repelling negative thoughts of discontent, anxiety, discouragement, and selfishness,
Cultivating cheerfulness, magnanimity, charity, and discretion,
Exercising economy in expenditure, generosity in giving, carefulness in conversation,
Diligence in appointed service, fidelity to every trust, and confidence in myself.
In particular, I will be faithful to the good habits of meditation, work, study, physical exercise, eating, and sleep that my own knowledge and experience has shown me to be right.
On my honor, I resolve to remain focused on the light in my life,
To do this from my own strengths and lean on no o thers,
And to do all that may be done to be a better human being today.


SO BE IT--AMEN!"

Gary Lamourboy, 2009

Monday, February 9, 2009

2/9/09

and when the next one occurs...
http://www.aztlan.net/spot_hate_crime_hoaxes.htm


think about keeping refrigerators and freezers working
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-coming-electricity-crisis/


and here's another reason to consider it now
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47606


Tap Water Toxins: Is Your Water Trying to Kill You?
Video: Tap Water Toxins: Is Your Water Trying to Kill You?
What you need to know about the water contaminations the EPA considers so toxic their standard should be zero!

New Guidelines for Safe Usage of Colloidal Silver

Finally! Knowing how to select a high quality product, and following these simple directives, can allow you to safely take full advantage of this marvelous natural antibiotic.

Stunning Examples of Long Exposure Photography

Don’t view these photos unless you have a few minutes of free time as these photos have a magical quality about them that is mesmerizing!

Why Economics Drives Most Food Options You Have

Most people are simply unaware of the powerful financial influences that are making them overweight.

Cornography: A Video You Need to See
Video: Cornography:  A Video You Need to See
Why do Americans consume more corn than any other country in the world?

Shocking Surprises About Those Mammograms...

Why risk missing detecting cancer with a questionable technology?
Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action

From Alaska to Maine, Montana to New Mexico, Native American activists are fighting the "New Indian Wars" to both preserve their sovereignty and protect Indian lands against disastrous environmental hazards. Nearly all Indian nations sit on land threatened by toxic waste, strip mining, oil drilling and nuclear contamination. At time when 30 years of environmental law is being dismantled, Native Americans are organizing to fight corporations and government.

2:30pm EST :: Tues, Feb 10


Beyond Treason

It reveals a history of profiteering by chemical companies such as Monsanto who used war as an occasion to sell their latest products, such as agent orange. The film gives details of US government testing of chemicals on its own citizens such as Operation Whitecoat and MKUltra. The film makes a compelling case that this policy is responsible for Gulf War syndrome, still referred to by the US military as a 'mystery illness'.

12:30pm EST :: Mon, Feb 9
5:30pm EST :: Wed, Feb 11

Featured Online Video of the Week:

August in the Empire State



The 2004 Presidential Election was one of the most politically divisive moments in recent American history. Amidst the division, the Republican Party held its first ever convention in New York City, a potent symbol for both President Bush and the local progressives energized to defeat him. .

Click here to watch this video


http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/553.html

book cover

The Truthdig Book Review Edited by Steve Wasserman
"David Rieff on ‘Africa’s World War’

" -- Why does the Darfur violence arouse outrage but the slaughter of millions more in Congo does not? An indispensable new book by Gerard Prunier attempts an answer by combining cool analysis and scholarly dispassion without losing sight of the horror of its subject.

>> TRUTHDIG ORIGINAL REPORTS:
Davos Walk-Off

Sandy Tolan on the Gaza Spat in Davos
"Erdogan, Peres and the Soufflés of Davos

" -- Dear Mr. Prime Minister: I write with grave concern over your impertinent remarks to the president of Israel at the World Economic Forum last week, which threatened to delay dinner for hundreds of extremely important global thinkers.

Barack Obama and Howard Dean

Chip Fleischer on Howard Dean for HHS
"Howard Dean Should Have Been Obama’s Pick All Along

" -- Now that Tom Daschle has withdrawn his name from the running to be health and human services secretary, President Obama should revisit the idea of nominating former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean for the position, an idea he abandoned last November for all the wrong reasons.

>> DON'T MISS THE BEST OF OUR SYNDICATED COLUMNISTS:

Marie Cocco on Wall Street Greed
"Dear Wall Street

" -- The reason you are such a big story is that you’ve stolen our money. Or at least that’s how most of the country sees it. You think those auto executives looked bad when they flew into Washington on their private jets? Just you wait.

Joe Conason on the Stimulus Debate
"Stimulus Skeptics Wrong (Again)

" -- Mythology is overshadowing history in the debate over Obama’s plan to stimulate the depressed economy. Excessive airtime is devoted to the prejudices of cable hosts and radio personalities who regurgitate ideas they barely understand.

E.J. Dionne on the Stimulus Media Wars
"GOP Revs Up the Spin on Stimulus

" -- Republicans have been winning the media wars over Obama’s central initiative. They have done so largely by defining the proposal by its least significant parts.

Ellen Goodman on the Octuplets and Ethics
"Eight Is (More Than) Enough

" -- It turns out that the woman who recently gave birth to eight babies already had six in vitro kids at home, no spouse, no job and a pending bankruptcy. There’s a word for this achievement of medicine’s reproductive business: nuts.

William Pfaff on Washington Politics
"In Washington, Public Policy and Private Wealth Are Hopelessly Tangled

" -- Barack Obama in Washington reminds one of Diogenes in Athens, with his lantern in search of an honest man.

David Sirota on Obama's Disappointing Lackeys
"A Team of Zombies

" -- Only weeks ago, the political world was buzzing about a “team of rivals,” but instead President Obama has populated his administration with Bush yes-men and Wall Street kleptocrats whose discredited theologies cannot be killed.

we had to conquer Grenada before they conquered us
http://whatreallyhappened.com/blogs/samlowrey/09/02/05/flashback-blitzer-vs-finkelstein-89


you can be the experimentals and I'll be the control
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Distinguishing-MONSANTO-s-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090204-80.html


here's a disturbing forecast
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KB06Aa01.html


an explanation of/link to
WikiDashboard
; who writes/edits articles
http://www.technologyreview.com/web/22076/?a=f


How Dangerous is Your Daily Shower?
Video: The Unholy Alliance Between Psychiatrists and Psychotropic Drugs: 36,000 Deaths a Year?
You wouldn’t knowingly load yourself up with potentially harmful chemicals and pollutants, would you? Well, a typical shower can expose you to nearly 10 times more chlorine than you’d get by drinking unfiltered tap water all day long. Not to mention other contaminants. See my simple and easy solution for a truly smart and healthful shower.

Freaky Facts about Spray-On Tans: Are You in Danger?

A tan gives the appearance of health because if obtained naturally, it is. Fake it with chemicals to “look healthy,” and you won’t like what you get.

Most Clever Billboard Advertising You Have Ever Seen

Some extremely creative uses of billboards.

The Unholy Alliance Between Psychiatrists and Psychotropic Drugs: 36,000 Deaths a Year?
Video: The Unholy Alliance Between Psychiatrists and Psychotropic Drugs: 36,000 Deaths a Year?
Comprehensive video expose on the shocking practices of the psychiatric profession. You need to know this information for you, your family and friends.

Here’s Your Chance to Change the FDA - I Need Your Help on This One

Americans continue to suffer and die because of the FDA. Take the time to help reform the FDA and stop this injustice.
fda playbook...follow the money
http://www.naturalnews.com/025524.html


"holocaust" gas chamber analysis by an expert
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html


emanuel has a plan for the 2nd Amendment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vp7f1QKYmg&feature=email


and he's not the only one

http://readitnews.com/read-it-views-prescott-opinion/page-9/1624-gun-law-update-gun-rights-testing-planned




Sunday, January 4, 2009

FRED REED

I read that America must find an “exit strategy” from Iraq that will bring “peace with honor.” My God. Honor? I’d rather have infected hemorrhoids. These at least are not a mental aberration. Well, depending on where your head is.

Honor means nothing more than prickly infantile vanity dressed up, usually, in desperate class-consciousness. Of all the symptoms of a weak ego, honor is the most embarrassing, and the most harmful. In a right-minded society it would be made a capital offense. (In women honor usually means chastity, also a bad idea but not nearly as pernicious.)

I do not mean to rail against the virtues, manly or otherwise. A few of them seem to have merit. Courage is doubtless admirable, at least when not engaged in by criminals or ambitious soldiers. Loyalty to friends in the face of adversity is to be commended. Common decency has its allure and occasional practitioners. Honesty? I think it worth trying, though with care until we ascertain its effects. But honor? It is a sure indication of a bad character.

Consider its usual display throughout history. A duke or baron, or some such befeathered artifact of excessive inbreeding, encounters another, a count perhaps, or more likely a no-count, who is in a bad mood. This latter says, “Yomama, Monsieur. Your granny wears combat boots.”

Whereupon the duke, instead of saying, “Oh buzz off, Lancaster, before I York a knot on your head”—this would be sensible and therefore inadmissible in affairs of honor—takes off his glove and throws it on the ground. This benefits dry cleaners, though a man with one glove looks eccentric. Anyway, this constitutes a Challenge, more to common sense than anything else.

And so the Duke and the Count meet on the Field of Honor, in the manner of small boys settling a dispute on the playground after school, but with more gauds and glitter. A duke disposes of greater resources than does a third-grader, though this may be the only distinction. After fulsome precedent ceremony, they fight with swords, suggesting grave inner dimness, until one pokes the other, who thereafter waits for peritonitis to set in. The survivor stalks off with the ostentatious pride of a swamp bird in mating season, his honor satisfied.

Smarter people would settle quarrels by playing marbles, I think.

Now, credit where credit is due. Most often, the code duello approach to honor served to rid society of men it would be better off without. A country can prosper without dukes, while a strike by the plumbers would be disastrous.

But sometimes the effects of aggrieved vanity were actually deleterious. In 1832, Evariste Galois, a preternaturally talented French mathematician, died in a duel at age twenty, fortunately having invented the theory of groups beforehand. His was an extraordinarily unuseful foray into the practice of honor. What might he have done had he insisted on marbles? Honor has a high price.

Military men are particularly susceptible to notions of honor, and should be indoctrinated against it in their formative years. They employ it largely as a veil covering their actual business, which has generally consisted in killing, raping, burning, and pillaging, in putting cities to the sword, massacring the unwilling conscripted peasants of the opposing army, and generating widows, orphans, and prisoners for the slave trade.

None of this would seem particularly honorable if examined carefully, so it carefully isn’t. The soldierly focus is on teary-eyed memories of fallen comrades, on the bravery of the cavalry at Balaclava or of the leather-jacketed bomber crews who burned a hundred thousand civilians to death per night, and such like.

The infantilism undergirding honor can be seen in the game of chicken. This curious parallel to aristocratic bloodletting was played decades ago by brooding teenagers with ducktail haircuts and a pack of Camels rolled into the shoulders of their tee-shirts. One adolescent duelist-in-waiting would insult another in some mortal manner. “Yer a yellow-belly Yankee,” perhaps, or “You’re a four-eyed sissy.” The other, experiencing a hormone surge frequently confused with a call of honor, accepts the challenge to play chicken. They’re going to settle it man to man, though emotionally they belong in diapers.

So they meet in their cars at night on a deserted stretch of road, each with friends as witnesses and supporters (exactly like nominally adult duelists with their pistols and seconds: there is no difference). The witnesses get out and the antagonists, facing each other from behind the wheels of their cars at a distance of perhaps a mile, race furiously at each other like rutting mountain sheep. The idea is that whoever swerves to avoid a collision is a coward, and thus besmirched. Of course they then both survive, and can continue trying to tap the cheerleaders.

Here is the very essence of honor, an engorged, all-consuming vanity, a willingness to die for one’s ego. Marbles, I insist. Much better.

This irrational behavior finds a place in international affairs. In fact, it comes close to being international affairs. One sees it often in the unwillingness of countries (read: psychological short men in charge of countries) to back down when nothing important is at stake, or to cut their losses when hobbyist wars go awry.

As noted, today our thunder-thump patriots say that we must find an honorable exit strategy from Iraq. This means that if we can’t steal the oil, we can at least pretend we won the war gloriously. Again, honor is ego: We aren’t going to swerve. Better that we bankrupt the country, fill the hospital wards with paraplegic and blind teenagers, kill who-cares-how-many Iraqis, than blink. Mine is longer than yours. It is, it is, it is.

Honor is a protective device for people whose self-esteem needs protection. Picture some archduck in England—actually “archduck” was a typo, but I think it better conveys the sense. Anyway, this gorgeous trinket of chivalry, which is itself a loathsome hotbed of honor, probably has twelve toes from more intermarriage than a holler in West Virginia, and a thistle-down intelligence, and the self-reliance of a queen ant. He is a monument to non-hybrid unvigor.

How does he protect his etiolated parsnip-like self-esteem from some village kid named, oh, say, Newton, who would regard him as the intellectual equivalent of a turnip? Easy. He invokes his honor. Defensive vanity. “A mere commoner. Pish.” Elevated nose, depressed intelligence.

None of this is necessary. Perhaps the greatest military thinkers in history are Fredwitz and James P. Coyne, in that order. Dr. Coyne’s proposed exit strategy is simple: “OK, on the plane. Now.” Should this seem unfathomable by its complexity, it could be reduced to four words. But no. What general, what president who has said “Mission accomplished,” is going to admit that it didn’t work so well? We must leave with honor. Not necessarily with all our body parts, or all the soldiers we came with, but with honor.

Question: Can someone smart out there answer a question about Dreamweaver? I want the text of the columns on this site to appear as they do here instead of running all across the screen. I don’t have a Dreamweaver book, but it was easy enough to make the new template used here. This will work for future columns.

The problem is that I don’t know how to backfit the text of past columns into the new format. It’s easy enough to add a table to the old template, but that doesn’t put the text inside it. In code view I can put table tags around the text, which works for individual columns, but “Apply Template” doesn’t apply the new format to old columns. A site-wide search-and-replace to put table tags around text might work, but would probably be messy. Is there a way to do this? I am an appalling Dreamweaver unwizard.


TAXES

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food Li cense Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Cha rge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most
prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middleclass in the
world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

Thursday, January 1, 2009

HOW TO SAVE THE USA

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.  Wall Street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
 
I feel our government should not be immune from similar risks.  It is therefore recommended that the following cuts be implemented by the next president.
 
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50, just one per state.  Also, reduce remaining staff by 25%.  Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and, of course, this would require some redistricting.
 
Some yearly monetary gains include:
 
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3mil. In staff per each member of the House, and $3mil. In staff per each member of the Senate every year.)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (for those members who's jobs are gone since current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/ yr.)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would  need to improve efficiencies.  It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.  It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
After all, Congress has many more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established.  (computers, cell phones, jet airplanes - to name  a few.)
Note: Congress did not hesitate to jump on a train for home this week when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems.  Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months while on the  campaign trail and still they all have been accepting full pay.  These facts alone support a reduction in the number of members of Congress.
 
Summary of opportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction in Congress members.
$282,100,000 for reduction of House members staff.
$150,000,000 for reduction of Senate members staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction in staff for remaining House members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction in staff for remaining Senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduced number of members of Congress.

Total estimated savings: $8,073,383,400 per year (And that's just for starters - when you factor in their retirement costs the number increases exponentially!)
 
Big business makes these types of cuts all the time.
 
If you are happy with how our government is right now, just delete this message.
If you are not happy, I assume you know what to do. 

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

SWINDLER OF THE YEAR

For anyone taking stock of 2008, Barack Obama is the inevitable choice as Person of the Year. But he’s not the only American whose story suggests that this thrilling, dramatic, unforgettable year will be seen as a demarcation of grand historical eras, a bright line between yesterday and tomorrow. My choice for runner-up is Bernard Madoff.

In a sense, we’re all Bernie Madoff. We’ve been running our economy in accordance with his accounting principles for a generation—and now we face a most unpleasant reckoning.

As everyone knows by now, Madoff—once one of the most respected financiers on Wall Street—stands accused of being perhaps the biggest swindler in history. Before his arrest earlier this month, he reportedly told his sons that he had defrauded investors of up to $50 billion. He allegedly followed the playbook written more than eight decades ago by the elegant grifter Charles Ponzi, who used money from new investors to pay juicy returns to old investors. That works fine for a while, but every Ponzi scheme eventually collapses in ruin.

Wall Street veterans recall how investors once begged to be allowed to invest their money with Madoff. Unlike Ponzi, he didn’t promise to deliver flashy double-digit returns overnight. He “earned” his investors 1 percent or 2 percent a month, bull market or bear, rain or shine. Because he didn’t overpromise, and because he limited his clientele, he was able to keep it going for decades.

Such steady gains, unsullied by the occasional bad year or disastrous quarter, are patently impossible. Some potential investors took one look at Madoff’s operation and took a pass. Some of the millionaires, billionaires and professional money managers who unwisely gave their money to Madoff were guilty of allowing greed to overwhelm their powers of observation and reason.

But not all of Madoff’s investors could have been in the dark. At least some must have realized how unlikely it was that he had developed some sort of Holy Grail strategy or technique that would always make money, no matter what the financial markets were doing. Some investors, I would wager, must have calculated that they could get in, get their return and get out before the whole thing fell apart.

Which makes me wonder how many of us had our eyes open when housing prices were soaring in Ponzi-like increments—by 10 percent or more a year, in some parts of the country—while middle-class incomes were largely stagnant. How many of us stopped to ask just who was supposed to be able to pay $1 million for a standard suburban split-level, even if it had an upgraded kitchen with a Sub-Zero fridge?

The whole subprime mortgage industry was based on the idea that housing prices would always rise. Given that assumption, it was perfectly rational for first-time homebuyers to sign up for adjustable-rate mortgages that they couldn’t really afford. From the moment they signed the loan papers, they would be building equity—through appreciation—that soon would make it easy, and lucrative, to refinance or sell.

In other words: get in, get their return and get out before the whole thing fell apart.

I’m not saying that average Americans were as culpable as Wall Street in creating this financial and economic crisis; our sins were venial, whereas theirs were mortal. Madoff’s alleged fraud was at least straightforward. Much worse was the creation of exotic “derivative” investment products that were bought and sold with enormous leverage—products whose true value turned out to be impossible to ascertain. As long as real estate values kept rising, it didn’t matter what these chimerical investments were worth. What mattered to Wall Street was the ability to collect enormous fees from real people, in real dollars, for trading unicorns and dragons.

After the bursting of the Internet bubble and the housing bubble, I think we’re done with bubbles for a while. Obama’s first challenge—and it may take much of his first term—is to get the economy back into a pattern of tangible, sustainable growth. He will be able to thank Madoff for giving us the simplest possible explanation of what we knew all along but chose to ignore: that there’s still no such thing as a free lunch.

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

WHORES TO MONEY

By Chris Hedges

The corporate forces that are looting the Treasury and have plunged us into a depression will not be contained by the two main political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties have become little more than squalid clubs of privilege and wealth, whores to money and corporate interests, hostage to a massive arms industry, and so adept at deception and self-delusion they no longer know truth from lies. We will either find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism—one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars—or we will continue to be fleeced and impoverished by our bankrupt elite and shackled and chained by our surveillance state.

The free market and globalization, promised as the route to worldwide prosperity, have been exposed as a con game. But this does not mean our corporate masters will disappear. Totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. “A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial,” Orwell wrote, “that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.” Force and fraud are all they have left. They will use both.

There is a political shift in Europe toward an open confrontation with the corporate state. Germany has seen a surge of support for Die Linke (The Left), a political grouping formed 18 months ago. It is co-led by the veteran socialist “Red” Oskar Lafontaine, who has built his career on attacking big business. Two-thirds of Germans in public opinion polls say they agree with all or some of Die Linke’s platform. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands is on the verge of overtaking the Labor Party as the main opposition party on the left. Greece, beset with street protests and violence by disaffected youths, has seen the rapid rise of the Coalition of the Radical Left. In Spain and Norway socialists are in power. Resurgence is not universal, especially in France and Britain, but the shifts toward socialism are significant.

Corporations have intruded into every facet of life. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive corporate cars. We buy our vehicular fuel and our heating oil from corporations. We borrow from corporate banks. We invest our retirement savings with corporations. We are entertained, informed and branded by corporations. We work for corporations. The creation of a mercenary army, the privatization of public utilities and our disgusting for-profit health care system are all legacies of the corporate state. These corporations have no loyalty to America or the American worker. They are not tied to nation states. They are vampires.

“By now the [commercial] revolution has deprived the mass of consumers of any independent access to the staples of life: clothing, shelter, food, even water,” Wendell Berry wrote in “The Unsettling of America.” “Air remains the only necessity that the average user can still get for himself, and the revolution had imposed a heavy tax on that by way of pollution. Commercial conquest is far more thorough and final than military defeat.”

The corporation is designed to make money without regard to human life, the social good or impact on the environment. Corporate laws impose a legal duty on corporate executives to make as much money as possible for shareholders, although many have moved on to fleece shareholders as well. In the 2003 documentary film “The Corporation” the management guru Peter Drucker says: “If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast.”

A corporation that attempts to engage in social responsibility, that tries to pay workers a decent wage with benefits, that invests its profits to protect the environment and limit pollution, that gives consumers fair deals, can be sued by shareholders. Robert Monks, the investment manager, says in the film: “The corporation is an externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing machine. There isn’t any question of malevolence or of will. The enterprise has within it, and the shark has within it, those characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed.” Ray Anderson, the CEO of Interface Corp., the world’s largest commercial carpet manufacturer, calls the corporation a “present day instrument of destruction” because of its compulsion to “externalize any cost that an unwary or uncaring public will allow it to externalize.”

“The notion that we can take and take and take and take, waste and waste, without consequences, is driving the biosphere to destruction,” Anderson says.

In short, the film, based on Joel Bakan’s book “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power,” asserts that the corporation exhibits many of the traits found in people clinically defined as psychopaths.

Psychologist Dr. Robert Hare lists in the film psychopathic traits and ties them to the behavior of corporations:

  • callous unconcern for the feelings for others;
  • incapacity to maintain enduring relationships;
  • reckless disregard for the safety of others;
  • deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit;
  • incapacity to experience guilt;
  • failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior.

And yet, under the American legal system, corporations have the same legal rights as individuals. They give hundreds of millions of dollars to political candidates, fund the army of some 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals to write corporate-friendly legislation, drain taxpayer funds and abolish government oversight. They saturate the airwaves, the Internet, newsprint and magazines with advertisements promoting their brands as the friendly face of the corporation. They have high-priced legal teams, millions of employees, skilled public relations firms and thousands of elected officials to ward off public intrusions into their affairs or halt messy lawsuits. They hold a near monopoly on all electronic and printed sources of information. A few media giants—AOL-Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, Disney and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsGroup—control nearly everything we read, see and hear.

“Private capital tends to become concentrated in [a] few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones,” Albert Einstein wrote in 1949 in the Monthly Review in explaining why he was a socialist. “The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”

Labor and left-wing activists, especially university students and well-heeled liberals, have failed to unite. This division, which is often based on social rather than economic differences, has long stymied concerted action against ruling elites. It has fractured the American left and rendered it impotent.

“Large sections of the middle class are being gradually proletarianized; but the important point is that they do not, at any rate not in the first generation, adopt a proletarian outlook,” Orwell wrote in 1937 during the last economic depression. “Here I am, for instance, with a bourgeois upbringing and a working-class income. Which class do I belong to? Economically I belong to the working class, but it is almost impossible for me to think of myself as anything but a member of the bourgeoisie. And supposing I had to take sides, whom should I side with, the upper class which is trying to squeeze me out of existence, or the working class whose manners are not my manners? It is probable that I, personally, in any important issue, would side with the working class. But what about the tens or hundreds of thousands of others who are in approximately the same position? And what about that far larger class, running into millions this time—the office-workers and black-coated employees of all kinds—whose traditions are less definite middle class but who would certainly not thank you if you called them proletarians? All of these people have the same interests and the same enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same system. Yet how many of them realize it? When the pinch came nearly all of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a working class crushed down to the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working-class in sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist party.”

Coalitions of environmental, anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist, sustainable-agriculture and anti-globalization forces have coalesced in Europe to form and support socialist parties. This has yet to happen in the United States. The left never rallied in significant numbers behind Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. In picking the lesser of two evils, it threw its lot in with a Democratic Party that backs our imperial wars, empowers the national security state and does the bidding of corporations.

If Barack Obama does not end the flagrant theft of taxpayer funds by corporate slugs and the disgraceful abandonment of our working class, especially as foreclosures and unemployment mount, many in the country will turn in desperation to the far right embodied by groups such as Christian radicals. The failure by the left to offer a democratic socialist alternative will mean there will be, in the eyes of many embittered and struggling working- and middle-class Americans, no alternative but a perverted Christian fascism. The inability to articulate a viable socialism has been our gravest mistake. It will ensure, if this does not soon change, a ruthless totalitarian capitalism.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

COLONOSCOPY

This is from newshound Dave Barry's colonoscopy journal:

I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy. A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis . Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, 'HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!'

I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called 'MoviPrep,' which comes in a box

large enough to hold a microwave oven. I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America 's enemies.

I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous. Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation. In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basicallywater, only with less flavor. Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep.

You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 onces.) Then you have to drink the whole jug. This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.

The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, 'a loose, watery bowel movement may result.' This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.

MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: Have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch? This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt. You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurtingviolently You eliminate everything. And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet..

After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep. The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous.. Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage. I was thinking, 'What if I spurt on Andy?' How do you apologize to a friend for something like that? Flowers would not be enough.

At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garments designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more shity than when you are actually naked.

Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand. Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down. Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep. At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bath room, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.

When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist. I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere. I was seriously nervous at this point. Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand. There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was 'Dancing Queen' by ABBA. I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, 'Dancing Queen' had to be the least appropriate. A more appropriate song could have been "I could have shit all night, etc."

'You want me to turn it up?' said Andy, from somewhere behind me. 'Ha ha,' I said. And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade. If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.

I have no idea. Really. I slept through it. One moment, ABBA was yelling 'Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine,' and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood. Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt. I felt excellent. I felt even more excellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.

On the subject of Colonoscopies..

Colonoscopies are no joke, but these comments during the exam were quite humorous....

A physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:

1. 'Take it easy, Doc. You're boldly going where no man has gone before!

2. 'Find Amelia Earhart yet?'

3. 'Can you hear me NOW?'

4. 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

5.. 'You know, in Arkansas , we're now legally married.'

6. 'Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?'

7. 'You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out...'

8. 'Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!'

9. 'If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!

10. 'Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity.'

11. 'You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?'

12. 'God, now I know why I am not gay.'

And the best one of all.

13. 'Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?