|
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
|
|
Political
Satire
Daily Updates.©2000
Archives of Daily
Updates for February, 2000:.
This page
contains Daily Updates for February,
2000. To go to our current
Daily Update Page, click here.
To go to our Archives of Daily Updates, click here..
.
2000-02-29-00 Daily Update-01 © 2000
"Straight-Talk"
McCain:
"I did not have
campaign relations with that phone-campaign implying Bush is 'anti-Catholic.'"
When first confronted with questions about the phone-campaign in Michigan
smearing George Bush as being "anti-Catholic," McCain denied any
involvement in any phone-call-campaign "accusing" Bush of being
"anti-Catholic." When subsequently confronted with the fact that
campaign-staff people had admitted authoring and implementing the "Catholic
Voter Alert" phone-campaign, McCain lamely contended his first denial was
truthful because the calls by his campaign merely "truthfully" recited
that George Bush had
visited Bob Jones University without overtly condemning that school's
anti-Catholic views. However, despite such obviously lame and
tenuous distinction, it is patently obvious that his campaign engaged in
telephone-fraud
by identifying
"Catholic Voter Alert" (rather than the McCain Campaign) as the source
and author of those calls. Whose conduct does this most resemble? Can you say "Bill Clinton."???
© 2000
2000-02-28-00 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Satirical Cramps--Again.
Remember that commercial about those times when "the food you love doesn't
love you back"? Please excuse the absence of an update for 02-28-00.
2000-02-27-00 Daily Update-01 © 2000
New World Order: Madeline Albright becomes
President of the Czech Republic (See story
about Czech President Vaclav Havel's having urged her to consider making herself
a candidate to be his successor.)
Pat Buchannan becomes
President of Austria
Policies to resurrect the good-side
of National Socialism.
Ted Kennedy becomes
President of Monaco
Satisfies Kennedy's desire to return
to life in the fast lane and escape the constant behave-yourself tutelage of Utah
Senator Orin Hatch.
Bill Clinton becomes
President of Monica
Inhabitants of recently-discovered
island-nation unanimously vote to rename their island "Monica" to entice Clinton
to become its President and sole male inhabitant. The CIA's recent discovery of the island
exclusively populated by plump, promiscuous young women led to DNA testing of the
inhabitants, which identified them as direct descendants of the sirens encountered by Odysseus.
Bill Bradley becomes
President of Sri Lanka
Bradley's pensive dynamism makes him
an ideal leader to preside over Sri Lankans from a temple atop a tall mountain where
he will dispense wisdom to those making the trek to his mountain-top temple for answers
to the true meaning of life.
Al Gore becomes
Maximum Leader at the Animal Farm
Opportunity for Gore to exercise his
proven ability to convince listeners that "up" is "down," which amazing ability he most
recently demonstrated by convincing an Apollo Theatre audience that Bradley's criticism of
his votes to preserve tax-exempt status of racially-discriminatory colleges was much less
offensive than Bradley's mean-spirited criticism of him for casting such votes.
Hillary Clinton becomes
Chairwoman of Amazon Republic
Having often demonstrated her prowess
in hurling objects (lamps, ash-trays, etc.) toward irresponsible men (considered by
inhabitants of the Amazon Republic to be a redundant phrase), the Amazonians unanimously
elected her President of their all-female republic.
Rudy Giuliani becomes
President of Sicily.
Needing a way to re-establish order
following the destruction of the Mafia's infrastructure, the inhabitants of Sicily unanimously
elected Giuliani to serve as President of Sicily (never mind Italy).
McCain becomes
Pope
McCain's having demonstrated
unequivocal belief in his own infallibility made him the unanimous choice of the College of
Cardinals to replace Pope John, to be voted out of office by the Cardinals for having
too often demonstrated too much humility.
Peter King becomes
President of Don King Promotions.
Having demonstrated the
mental-gymnastics skills to maintain a straight face while while shamelessly asserting
self-contradictory positions and engaging in shameless self-promotion, Peter King has been
named President of Don King Promotions.
© 2000
2000-02-26 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Satirical Cramps.
Remember that commercial about those times when "the food you love doesn't
love you back"? Please excuse the absence of an update for 02-26-00.
2000-02-25 Daily Update-02 © 2000
McCain has more courage than 1,000 Al Gores.
Put aside for a moment your opinion on whether McCain and Bush should have urged
South Carolina to remove the Confederate Flag from atop the Capital of South
Carolina and instead put it in its proper place in a museum; put aside the continuing silence by
Democratic South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings on the issue; put aside Gore's
failure to demand that the current Democratic Governor simply move the flag from
atop the Capital and put it in a museum. Then focus on the statement
by Al Gore in which he said the Republican candidates (i.e., McCain and Bush)
"didn't have the courage" to urge South Carolina to remove the flag--
then ask yourself whether Al Gore is entitled to lecture John McCain on the
subject of courage. (By the way, I think McCain and Bush should have
stated their opinion that the flag should be moved-- indeed, in an interview,
George Bush said that if it were in his state, he would oppose flying the
Confederate flag
over the Texas state capital and McCain implied a similar position.)
(One more by the way: I am a Southerner. The flag belongs in a museum
focusing on history, not atop a Capital.) This "no
courage" criticism of Bush and McCain by Gore is not just simply below the
belt-- it's race-baiting.
2000-02-25 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Polisat
officially endorses a candidate for President.
Who is the candidate we admire most?
Who is the best and Who cares the
most?
To find-out his name
and join his campaign,
click
here to be one who votes.
© 2000
2000-02-24 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Hell on Earth
Hell on Earth is what you get when you entrust governmental power to
people on a mission to create Heaven on Earth for everyone. © 2000
2000-02-23 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Push-Polls
For one who keeps up with the news,
a phone-call won't alter his views
A push-poll won't work
except on a jerk
who doesn't keep up the the news.
© 2000
2000-02-22 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Failure breeds humility
Because our New Hampshire predictions
were so far off base they were fiction
We felt it was best
to give it a rest
and not try to guess about Michigan.
© 2000
2000-02-21 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Hypocrisy on Parade
In the Gore/Bradley debate this evening, Bradley justifiably confronted Gore
with votes he cast between 1979 and 1981 to preserve tax-exempt status for
racially-discriminatory colleges. Gore described those votes as
"anti-quota" votes. Bradley and Gore have castigated George Bush
merely for speaking at Bob Jones University without overtly
condemning racially and religiously bigoted views by that school's leaders. But, in
the Gore/Bradley debate in the Apollo Theatre tonight, did Bradley or Gore overtly condemn bigoted and inflammatory views expressed by, and actions taken
by, Al Sharpton? Can you say, "No"? If you can bring
yourself to say "No," you'd be right. Do Bradley's and
Gore's failures to overtly condemn Sharpton's bigoted views and behavior while in a debate before an audience
comprised of large numbers of his supporters, whose votes they want,
mean that Bradley and Gore share or endorse Sharpton's bigoted views? If
you answer "No" to that question, what's your answer to the question
of whether Bush's giving of a speech at Bob Jones University without overtly
condemning its leaders crowd constituted an endorsement of
that school's bigoted views?. © 2000
2000-02-20 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Blind Arrogance & Self-Righteous Zealotry
The tone of McCain's "concession" speech yesterday
evening makes it obvious he's a man who completely, unequivocally and blindly
believes his own rhetoric about himself. With false humility, he tries to
disguise his incredible arrogance and self-righteous zealotry. His claim
that his campaign was so "pure" and "positive" is
insulting. He started his campaign with the accusation that
everyone but he is corrupt, that Bush's proposal for across-the-board tax cuts
was designed to give "most" of the "benefits" to the
"rich," and that Bush posed a threat to Social Security.
Regardless of what he says, the solutions he proposes are clear manifestations
of a government-knows-best philosophy.
As much as Al Gore may deserve criticism for his
participation in the Buddhist Temple fundraising event and for his unrelated
speech contending there was "no controlling legal authority"
prohibiting campaign-solicitations via telephone located on federal property,
McCain's repeated characterizations of those events plainly distort them in ways
relatively easily refuted. Is this kind of distortion and overstatement
what he means by a "positive" campaign?
When Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, he should
have known the school promotes bigoted viewpoints and should have overtly
condemned such views. Arguably, Bush should have disassociated himself
from the views of the veteran who spoke so unkindly in his presence about
McCain, yet when Bush -- in response to being castigated by McCain for not
having repudiated such comments -- pointed out McCain's failure to disassociate
himself from Warren Rudman's bigoted criticism of Christians, McCain feebly
said Rudman was entitled to his own views. (Of course, Rudman is a
decent man, but he should have apologized for his bigoted remarks.)
Finally, McCain's commercial implying Bush is a liar like
Clinton was as unfair as would be a Gore commercial equating Bradley with
Clinton. Perhaps McCain's demonstration of blind self-righteousness and
ungraciousness is a manifestation of the reason so few of his senatorial
colleagues support him. © 2000
2000-02-19 Daily Update © 2000
The War Between the Stakes (McCain's and Bush's
stakes in the South Carolina Primary)
What a paradox is John McCain: He's a heroic and honorable man who risked
his life for his country and principles of freedom. He endured torture at
the hands of totalitarian propagandists who tried to force him to agree that
"up" was "down"-- i.e., that "freedom" was
"slavery" and "slavery" was "freedom" (while Hanoi
Jane frolicked with his captors). Even recently, in commenting about
the plight of Elian Gonzales, he correctly analogized the language of Cuban
officials as the same type "commie-speak" spoken by his captors in
Hanoi.
McCain Paradox #1:
It's paradoxical for him to now use standard, leftist "class-warfare"
language in characterizing across-the-board tax cuts as "benefits" for
the "rich." One subscribing to the view that the government is
the servant of the people, rather than vice versa, could not reasonably view a
reduction of taxes as a "benefit" from the government to
taxpayers. Only leftist-philosophy views the issue as whether a particular
group "needs" such "benefit"-- this is clearly a leftist
manifestation of the philosophy of Karl Marx: "From each according to
his ability; to each according to his need" with the collective group --
not the individual -- deciding what should, and should not, be considered to be
that individual's "needs." That's the antithesis of our notion
of the land of the free and the home of the brave.
McCain Paradox #2:
His lingering feelings of guilt for having been involved in the Keating Five
scandal have apparently motivated him to become blind to the unconstitutionality
of his proposals for campaign-finance "reform." His prior,
heroic sacrifices for freedom make it paradoxical for him to propose campaign
finance "reform" that would put the government in charge of political
speech in the land of the free and the home of the brave. No one could
seriously dispute that large sums of money controlled by small groups can, and
probably often do, influence positions taken by those in power (or those seeking
power), but the "solution" of having the government regulate political
speech by severely limiting a citizen's right to expend his property in a manner
he sees fit to express his political views is a solution far worse than the
problem. Our founding fathers recognized this principle when they decided
to include a constitutional guarantee against governmental infringement of free
speech and freedom of association-- they knew that government efforts to
prohibit "bad" speech would ultimately become a far worse evil than
tolerating "bad" speech. McCain tries to deny that his
campaign-finance proposals would limit free speech-- He says they would only
limit the bad "special interests." Yet his own response to a
political-action group's criticism of his proposals make it obvious that he
expects his proposals to severely limit the rights of citizens to pool their
resources to engage in issue-advocacy and/or support for, or opposition to,
particular candidates or parties: He said the reason the pro-life
political-action committees oppose him is that they are currently running a
highly lucrative fundraising business to engage in such political advocacy and
that they know enactment of his proposals would put a stop to their
activities. I rest my case!
(By the way, I personally oppose most of the views and tactics of the pro-life
PACs, but loyalty to the principles of free speech restrains me from advocating
enactment of laws to restrict their political-speech activities.)
McCain Paradox #3:
It's paradoxical that the fact that he's luxurating in the lap of Big Beer does
not engender in him any sense of hypocrisy or contradictory behavior in his
failure to launch a campaign to send the Budweiser Frogs and Lizards to the Joe
Camel Graveyard. (Personally, I would not want him to launch such a
crusade-- I just wish he'd stop being so self-righteous and fanatically zealous
in his "crusade" against "Big Tobacco" and "Joe
Camel"-- Scroll down to read my
"Solution" comments
in the paragraph above the 2000-02-12 Daily Update.) I'm
reasonably sure that "Big Beer" executives would unhesitatingly state
under oath before congress that beer is not "addictive" (although some
become "addicted" to it just as some become "addicted" to
nicotine). I'm also reasonably sure they would deny that they intend
advertisements using characters such as animated frogs and lizards to induce
minors into a desire to drink beer. Would he then call them
"liars" as he did "Big Tobacco" executives? Would he
then call them "people who addicted our children"
as he characterized the "Big Tobacco" people? (Scroll down to
read my comments at 2000-02-04 Daily Update--07.) His
fanatical zealotry on this issue is just as offensive as the totalitarian
fanaticism of leftists.
Do I admire McCain? Yes. Am I, as a citizen
favoring limited government, angered by his anti-freedom positions on these
issues? Yes. Am I, as a citizen, engaging in "issue
advocacy"? Yes. Am I a "tool" of "Big
Tobacco"? No. Please excuse the absence of satire in these
comments. Jim Wrenn, Editor © 2000
2000-02-18 Daily Update -02 © 2000
Why must the experts do studies to learn what
we've known all along? (Regarding a federal study that just
"discovered" that kids raised in two-parent homes with educated moms
learn better, faster and easier than kids raised in single-mom homes abandoned
by irresponsible fathers-- click
here for results of that study.)
Why must our taxes be spent
to learn what we've known by our own common sense?
The Feds don't believe
any facts they retrieve
unless they cost dollars and cents
A new federal study "discovers"
that children learn best when their
Mothers
Can help them in learning
while Dad does the
earning
instead of just doing his druthers.
Since single-mom's kids fall behind,
then what's the solution to find?
Those dads must be forced
to fully support
the moms
and the kids left behind
We who know how to be Dads
must learn how to inspire younger lads
To not reproduce
and go on the loose
but stay with
their kids and be Dads
Young women must learn to be choosey
and not reproduce loosey-goosey
They must say "No" to guys
who don't show
they want them as wives and not floozies
© 2000
2000-02-18 Daily Update--01 © 2000
Advice to Dubya
Now that it has become clear that no one is entitled to criticize any proposal
by McCain without being perceived as being "negative," it's obvious
that Bush must incorporate the following preface into every statement he utters,
every comercial he runs, every leaflet he distributes and every phone call any
of his supporters make in which he may have the temerity to find any fault
whatsoever in any aspect of any of McCain's proposals:
Recommended example #1:
John McCain is a hero. In fact, George Bush thinks John McCain is much
more heroic than George Bush himself. Nevertheless, George Bush recognizes
that since even heroes sometimes have bad ideas, it's his obligation to point
out flaws in McCain's ideas on campaign finance reform: Enactment of his
proposals would not merely limit contributions by those that you as a voter may
perceive as "special interests," they would also limit YOUR rights as
a voter to pool your money with other like-thinking individuals to engage in
advocacy of issues and/or candidates with which you agree.
Recommended example #2:
John McCain is a hero. In fact, George Bush thinks John McCain is much
more heroic than George Bush himself. Nevertheless, George Bush recognizes
that since even heroes sometimes have bad ideas, it's his obligation to point
out flaws in McCain's ideas on tax cuts: No matter how noble may be
McCain's goal of helping the "little guy," it's simply wrong to use
rhetoric that falsely implies that money paid to the government as taxes belongs
to the government so that a reduction of such taxes should be viewed as a
"benefit" from, or "spending" by, the government. © 2000
2000-02-16 Daily Update -01 © 2000
Dubya-Speak-- It's Deja Vu All Over
Again (as that great philosopher, Yogi, would say)
His speeches are good but egad,
he mangles his syntax like Dad
He surely ain't stranger
than that Texas Ranger--
ole Yogi whose syntax is plaid
Omitting the nominative case,
ole Dad lost the speechmaker race
But Dubya's like Yogi,
that brilliant old fogie--
who speaks with his words out
of place.
© 2000
2000-02-15 Daily Update-01 © 2000
Boredom Exposes
Bill Clinton's True Nature
A guy with the pseudonym Wankel
who loves to behave as a prankster
did us a favor
by adding some
flavor
to CNN's chat with SlickMeister.
Being a quite clever guy,
the prankster named Wankel was sly
With clever invention,
he
posed as Bill Clinton
and showed us what's in Willie's mind.
We shouldn't give hackers a forum;
instead, we should soundly deplore 'em,
but pranks don't give grief,
they give us relief,
and this one's residing in "Boredom"
© 2000
2000-02-14 Daily Update--01 © 2000
Valentine from Lucky Editor to Loyal Wife
We're lucky that Valentine's Day
reminds us of things we should say
to those whom we love
but seldom think of
their
caring for us day by day.
Among all the guys in the world
are few who have found such a pearl.
as my loyal wife
who copes with my strife
and helps
when my brain's in a whirl.
When I'm too involved in my work
and often behave like jerk.
She rises above
and shows me her love
when most
gals would just go berserk.
She stayed by my side through dark nights
and helped me to cope with my strife.
There is no way
sufficient to say
how lucky I am
she's my wife.
© 2000
2000-02-13 Daily
Update--02 © 2000
Hillary Rodham Clinton's new name: Hilliary
or Hellary
As "Rodham" or "Clinton" she's pilloried,
and so she just
wants to be "Hill'ry."
She lied up a storm
for
Hellth-Care
"Reform" ---
Hil-liar-y
or maybe just Hellary
© 2000
2000-02-13 Daily
Update--01 © 2000
McCain: Heroism, Sanctimoniousness,
Zealotry and Say/Do Contradictions: (Please excuse the non-satirical nature of this item-- but it doesn't hurt
for you to know how I think.)
McCain has justifiably become perceived as a larger-than-life
heroic figure on the basis of his courageous endurance of barbaric cruelty at
the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. (Remember those
anti-imperialist heroes so deeply admired and publicly supported by Hanoi
Jane?) By his actions he earned, and deserves, our eternal gratitude,
admiration and respect, but he has not earned any entitlement to be immune from
criticism for supporting bad ideas, acting in ways that contradict what he says,
and exhibiting sanctimoniousness and zealotry on some issues.
Campaign Finance "Reform"
McCain sanctimoniously implies (and sometimes directly says) that those who
oppose his campaign-finance "reforms" are "corrupt."
(Of course, if someone else's commercial contains minor inaccuracies about his
proposals and/or record, he sanctimoniously views such actions as attacks on his
personal integrity.) While claiming his
proposals would not violate free speech, he characterized the pro-life
political-action committees as lucrative businesses that know enactment of his
proposed reforms would dramatically limit their political-advocacy
activities. [Although I personally disagree with much (probably most)
of the political agenda of the pro-life PACs, I vehemently oppose government
regulation of their constituencies' expenditures of their "property"
in exercising their free-speech/free-association rights to advocate their
political agenda.] McCain's comments about the pro-life PACs
plainly demonstrate that notwithstanding his
claim to the contrary, he actually expects
his campaign-finance "reforms" to have the effect of limiting the
free-speech and free-association rights groups of Americans who choose to band
together and pool their resources to advocate their political agenda via
lobbying, commercials, political endorsements, "issue advocacy" and by
supporting and opposing various candidates and parties. (By the way, Bush
says he supports "banning soft money" but only if there's
"paycheck" power of union members to prevent their dues being spent on
political advocacy with which they disagree-- thus, Bush merely supports a
less-evil version of campaign finance "reform" than does McCain, but,
at least Bush hasn't made such anti-freedom proposals a centerpiece of his
campaign and doesn't seem to be closed-minded zealot on the subject.)
Tax-cuts-- McCain's
class-warfare rhetoric and self-contradictory statements:
McCain employs class-warfare rhetoric to characterize Bush's
tax-cut proposal as overwhelmingly "benefiting" the rich.
However, on 02-06-00,
he told Sam Donaldson on This Week, that he "virulently opposed the
1993 income tax increase" passed by Clinton and the Democrats, yet he characterizes Bush's
proposal to reverse that tax cut as being a "benefit to the rich." I agree that it's beneficial to an
overtaxed taxpayer for the government to start taking less of his money, but how can
he fairly
call such tax cut a "benefit" as if the government were giving something to the taxpayer?
Why
does he use such Orwellian language? Why does he characterize a tax cut as a "spending" of the
"surplus"? How can he characterize the act of having the government take less of a taxpayer's
money as if it constitutes the "spending" of money by the government? © 2000
Anti-Joe-Camel Zealotry while
luxuriating in the lap of Big Beer's Frogs & Lizards:.
Is he--as a
financial beneficiary of Big
Beer-- proud
of the Budweiser Frogs and Lizards
and similar commercials frequently aired on sporting events popular among
kids? In terms of years of life-expectation eliminated among our
"kids," deaths from drunk driving by kids lured into drinking by Big
Beer's commercials targeting the adolescent sense of humor eliminates more
life-expectation years than the effects of the slightly-lower, long-term life-expectancy among
smokers. See polisat's
2000-02-05 Daily Update (scroll
down to find it)]. Furthermore, the "second-hand" effects of
drunk driving often kills
innocent, non-drinkers unlike the merely annoying effects of "second-hand
smoke."
Plain Hypocrisy:
See polisat's
challenge to
McCain in polisat's
2000-02-05 Daily Update (scroll down to
find it)]. Of course he'll have a ready-made excuse for not doing so,
but in refusing to do so, he'll be doing the right thing for the wrong
reason. It should be obvious that if his family's financial well-being
were secured by a Big Tobacco distributorship instead of a Big Beer
distributorship, he'd be waging a holy war against the Budweiser Frogs and
Lizards while ignoring Joe Camel, a lesser threat to "our children"
than the Budweiser Frogs and Lizards.
Solution:
The solution is not
to launch a holy-war against the Budweiser Frogs and Lizards. Although
that's clearly the logical extension of the holy-war against "Joe
Camel," it would take us further down the slippery slope to an Orwellian
society. Successes in such holy wars will lead to holy wars against red
meat, mayonnaise, bacon, sausage, eggs, fast-food, carbonated drinks, sugar,
etc.-- the list for holy-war do-gooders would be endless. The solution is
to stop the holy war against tobacco and not initiate any more holy-wars to
placate the utopians and pantheopian activists. ("Pantheopian"
is a term I coined to describe the currently fashionable form of activism based on a worship of nature and
a view of man as a corrupting and plundering intruder on nature.) © 2000
2000-02-12 Daily Update © 2000
Jesse-the-Mind-Left-the-Body to found a new
"X" Party
Jesse-the-Mind-Left-the-Body
has found the Reform Party shoddy
He was for Trump
but Ross kicked his rump
to prove he can still be so snotty.
The Mind says the party dysfunctions,
so leaving will cause no compunctions,
and like Vince McMahon,
he'll make a new plan
for a new party "X" that
will function.
© 2000
2000-02-11 Daily
Update-05 © 2000
Bar Disciplinary Proceedings against Clinton loom
(fruit of the loom?)
We know people love to hate lawyers
and think
they're as low-down as voyeurs.
Was Clinton's low ethics
to watch cigar sex-trysts
the "two for one"
combo he offered?
© 2000
2000-02-11 Daily
Update-04 © 2000
Truth spoken by idiots remains true; Foolishness
spoken by wise men remains foolish.
Just as 2+2=4 being asserted as true by a
dishonorable person doesn't make it false, 2+2=5 being asserted as true by an
honorable, heroic person sincerely believing it to be true nevertheless doesn't
make it true. McCain, Bradley, Feingold, et al, can say all they
want that campaign finance "reform" doesn't infringe free speech, but
anyone using common sense will understand that governmental regulation of not
only monetary contributions but also "in kind" work inherently limits
a citizen's freedom of speech and association. © 2000
2000-02-11 Daily Update-03
Disbarment Proceedings: Nixon subordinates
then and Clinton now
Soon after John Dean admitted that while
serving as Special Counsel in the Nixon Administration, he had encouraged others
to give false answers under oath, the Virginia State Bar initiated procedures
promptly resulting in his disbarment. Soon after Charles Colson pleaded
guilty to having disseminated to a media representative damaging information
about a political adversary of Nixon, the Virginia State Bar initiated
procedures promptly resulting in his disbarment. In Virginia, unlike
Arkansas, no outside party had to file any legal proceeding in an effort to
compel the Bar to proceed to do its duty. © 2000
2000-02-11 Daily Update-02
Could Michael Jordan endorse Bradley under Campaign
Finance "Reform"?????
I admire Bill Bradley. I admire Michael Jordan,
one of the few highly-paid athletes who seems to have remained a well-grounded
person. News reports indicating Jordan is doing a political commercial for
Bradley after having already donated $1,000 to Bradley's campaign raise an
interesting question: Under Bradley's (and McCain's and Feingold's)
campaign finance "reform" proposals, wouldn't Jordan's ad constitute
an "in kind" contribution worth one hell of a lot more than
$1,000. Wouldn't the new "reform" prohibit such ad as the
equivalent of a personal contribution exceeding the government-allowed level of
political speech? I think Jordan should be free to make the ad regardless
of how much he were to have contributed to Bradley. Hell, I think Jordan
should have the freedom to publicly give all his money to Bradley's campaign if
he were to choose to do so. That's what freedom is all about, but the
campaign finance "reform" proposals will increase the anti-free-speech
and anti-freedom governmental limitations that already exist.
The only real effect of campaign finance "reforms" enacted since 1974
has been to gradually make ordinary people less and less willing to become
involved in politics or make contributions. Many of them are
intimidated by the perception that they need the advice of a $500/hour lawyer to
know whether they may legally do what they want to do. This should not be
the case in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Jim
Wrenn, Editor (Please excuse the absence of satire in these comments.) © 2000
2000-02-11 Daily
Update-01
"It's all the buzz in
Albion: Hillary stiffs a single mom"
Washington
Times Headline 02-11-00.
Sounds just like Bill, to me.
2000-02-10 Daily Update
Forbes withdraws from the race; disproves
"need" for campaign finance "reform."
The rich man, Steve Forbes, has withdrawn,
so now do you think it might dawn
on any who favor
a stronger enslaver
they call campaign finance
"reform,"
that money just isn't enough
'cause rich guys get knocked on their duff?
No, they won't learn
'cause they can't discern
that money just isn't enough.
©
2000
2000-02-09 Daily Update
Chris Matthews & John McCain-- Visceral
thinkers with brains
Chris Matthews is like John McCain--
a visceral thinker with brains.
They both want to be ...
so noble, you see,
they sometimes can be quite a pain
But one thing we've known all
along:
they sometimes admit they've been wrong
And that gives us hope
that tugs on their ropes
can teach them to sing a new song.
We know that they both value freedom
and dislike political fiefdoms .
That's why it's bizarre
that both of them are ...
for limiting campaigning freedom.
They should know campaigners ain't "free"
as government regulatees
They prob'ly won't learn
until they discern expression
has ceased to be free.
© 2000
2000-02-08 Daily Update
The Battle of South Carolina--
Can Bush Beard the McCain Lion?
While Bush tries to campaign aloof,
McCain will soon bring down his roof
Unless Bush can learn
that people discern
more with their hearts than the truth.
They're much more attracted to style
by more than a big country mile
In rough lions' dens,
John stays to make friends
while Bush only visits a while.
McCain is so sure he is right,
that questions don't give him a fright
His resolute style
and well-practiced smile
gives him appeal wrong or right.
He surely defied all predictions
by claiming that he would cause friction.
Bad policies seem
to make voters keen
when stated by one with convictions.
He has the incredible gumption
to accuse everyone of corruption,
then whines and complains
when anyone deigns
to challenge his bonehead assertions.
So how can one challenge a hero--
without coming off like a zero?
First, sing his song,
then show how he's wrong
despite having been a big hero.
When battling with one who's a lion,
one can't for a moment stop trying
Again and again,
go into his den--
that's how one can beard a tough lion.
© 2000
2000-02-07 Daily Update
Editor's Lament
As each of us travels through life,
we're often confronted with strife
In our times of need
we hope to receive
a pat on
the back--not a knife
In forming opinions of those
whom we are just getting to know
We think with our hearts and
don't use our smarts
and sometimes get tossed to and fro.
In thinking a person a friend,
we make good assumptions and then
We sometimes uncover
some warts and discover
behavior that's not like a friend
So what can we learn from such cads?
To draw the wrong lesson is sad
We can't forego trust
'cause that's such a bust--
we still have to risk being "had."
Protection from being let-down
means trusting in no one around
Trusting no one
protects us from some
but shields
us from ups, not just downs.
To separate wheat from the chaff
and make best whatever we have
Time and again
we must trust a friend,
and when
we're let down-- learn to laugh.
© 2000
2000-02-06 Daily Update-03
Media/political hype for government-funded child-care
(Can you say "taxpayer funded"? -- Better yet, can you say "Hillary Care")
I'm tired of the whining and frets
by couples who have kids as pets.
The proper child care's
a Mom who is there--
not someone who's paid to hear frets.
Too many women fall prey
to the outlandlish notion that they
must have a career
to satisfy peers
and leave kids with strangers all day.
Why do career gals suppose
that others should pay through the nose
so they can pay less
for care they think best
so they can keep up with the Jones?
My boys were quite lucky guys
as apples of their Mama's eyes
She had a career
but quit without fear
to be Mom for her special guys.
She could have preferred a career
and sent them to child-care to rear,
but she knew it best
that we all have less
for them to have more of her near.
Should one-income couples pay more
in taxes for child-care galore
So two-income fam'lies
can sample life's candies
and pay less for child-caring chores?
Of course the right answer is "No."
So who does that leave-- Do you know?
Those two-income fam'lies
and grandads and grannies--
and college-kid's parents-- but whoa !
All in those groups will say "No,"
we just can't afford to pay mo'
Who, then, is left
to be made bereft
for yuppies to keep up their show?
Who should be brought to their knees
to pay for such big-spending sprees?
So don't tax me,
and don't tax thee,
just tax that guy behind the tree
© 2000 (except last line)
2000-02-06 Daily Update-02
Sound Bites
from Hillary's Senatorial-Candidacy Announcement (du 2000-02-06)
Shedding Light on the Issues:
I did not throw lamps at that man ... Bill Clinton.
Policy on Smoking:
I did not throw ashtrays at that man ... Bill Clinton
Policy on Sex Education:
I did not give condoms to that man ... Bill Clinton
Policy on Sex:
I
did not have sex with that man ... Bill Clinton
Policy on Sectarianism:
I do not favor sects, you all, re lay-shuns.
Policy on Mean-Spiritedness:
Unlike the mean-spirited Rudi Giuliani, I treat everyone as kindly as I did
Billy Dale.
Policy on Cookies:
I made cookies for my website.
Policy on Women as Cattle-Futures Investors:
I know how to turn a little cow into a lot of bull
Policy on the Homeless:
For years, I've known first-hand the value of government shelters.
Policy on Guns:
Since Bill was never in the military, he never learned that important, basic
training lesson, "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting,
this is for fun," but the slogan is best understood when being illustrated
by hand gestures. But, it's my understanding that as Commander in Chief,
he got those instructions in the Oval Office.
Policy on Gun Registration:
I favor gun-registration-- If Bill's had been properly registered, Paula
wouldn't have been able to identify it.
Advice for Feminists on Dealing with Male Predators
in the Corporate World:
As an advocate for
feminists, I've decided to license and franchise the "Kit for Career
Women" modeled on my
own secrets of success in dealing with powerful men.
© 2000
2000-02-06 Daily Update-01
McCain's Self-contradiction on Tax-Cuts--
Question to:
John McOrwell aka John
McCain
Today (02-06-00), you (John McCain) told Sam Donaldson on This Week, that you "virulently opposed the
1993 income tax increase" passed by Clinton and the Democrats, yet you characterize Bush's
proposal to reverse that tax cut as being a "benefit to the rich." I agree that it's beneficial to an
overtaxed taxpayer for the government to start taking less of his money but how can you fairly
call such tax cut a "benefit" as if the government were giving something to the taxpayer? Why
do you use such Orwellian language? Why do you characterize a tax cut as a "spending" of the
"surplus"? How can you characterize the act of having the government take less of a taxpayer's
money as if it constitutes the "spending" of money by the government? © 2000
2000-02-05 Daily Update
Polisat's Challenge to John McCain & Big Beer
Senator McCain: I like and admire you enormously, but just as I don't let my affection for my closest friends keep me from
telling them when I think they're wrong on serious matters, and just as they do likewise toward me, I make the following
challenge to you: Show your complete independence from Big Beer by promptly introducing (or by giving your word that you
will introduce) federal legislation to do the following things:
1. Require Big Beer to eliminate underage drinking by the end of the year 2002.
2. Require Big Beer to withdraw all advertising from television, radio and the internet.
3. Ban Big Beer's use of cartoon-like characters, such as frogs and lizards, in any form of advertising in any medium
(including magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc.)-- i.e., send the frogs, lizards, animated beer-bottles, etc. to the Joe Camel
graveyard.
4. Prohibit Big Beer from directly or indirectly sponsoring, or advertising at, any sporting event popular among minors.
5. Prohibit Big Beer from directly or indirectly causing, or permitting, any brand name, trademark or company name
associated in any way with beer to be imprinted upon hats, T-shirts, sweatshirts, tote-bags, or other novelty items that might
be attractive to minors.
6. Require Big Beer to to establish a multi-billion-dollar fund to support a government-run, nationwide alcohol-recovery
programs.
7. Require Big Wine to fund homeless-people shelters in all major cities.
8. Impose a $0.75 per can tax on beer to be used for federal programs designed to attain those goals and whatever other
goals may be devised in the future for "the children," "the elderly," and "the homeless."
9. Impose a $3,000 per child penalty for every minor caught drinking any time after January 1, 2003.
10. Impose a $100,000 fine on Big Beer for each person killed in an accident caused by drunkenness (whether in the form of
drunk driving, drunken brawls, domestic quarrels, etc.)
11. Impose a $500,000 fine on Big Beer for each person killed in a crime in which the offender's blood-alcohol content was
sufficient to constitute impaired driving.
12. Require Big Beer and Big Wine to fund a nationwide educational program involving public-service announcements
graphically explaining the death, injuries, broken homes, spousal abuse, etc. caused by alcohol consumption.
Embracing this 12-step program would go a long way toward convincing me you are motivated by principle rather than
political expediency in your war against Big Tobacco. By the way, I am NOT a "tool" of Big Tobacco. I do not now, and
never have, owned any tobacco company stock and have never represented any tobacco company. I'm just an American
citizen angered by big government and determined to insist that those who demand such exacting standards by others live up to
such standards themselves. There's often a fine line between being principled and becoming a zealot, and on tobacco,
campaign-finance and using the Orwellian tactic of calling a tax-cut a "benefit", you have, in my opinion, crossed that line. Let
me know whether you'll accept my challenge. By having admitted what you considered to have been your own wrongdoing in
the "Keating Five" episode, I know you have the courage to change your mind when you can be persuaded you're wrong.
You can reach me at the email address shown below. Jim Wrenn, editor@polisat.com.
2000-02-04 Daily Update--07
McCain Quote of the Day about Smokers' Coalition criticism of his tobacco-tax increase
On 02-03-00, McCain said (in South Carolina): "I'm proud to be opposed by the people who addicted our children"
presumably referring in part to Big Tobacco's use of "Joe Camel" to entice "kids" into smoking. As the spouse of an owner of
substantial interests in a huge beer distributorship, is he, as a financial beneficiary of Big Beer, proud of the Budweiser Frogs
and Lizards and similar commercials frequently aired on sporting events popular among kids? In terms of years of
life-expectation eliminated among our "kids," deaths from drunk driving by kids lured into drinking by Big Beer's commercials
targeting the adolescent sense of humor eliminates more life-expectation years than the slightly-lower, long-term
life-expectancy among smokers.© 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--06
Al Gore Quote of the Day
"I did not have opposing relations with that National Organization of Women." © 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--05
A 1996 Gorephonics--
(Gore's adaptation of Clinphonics.)
What we thought we heard Gore say in his 1996 Democratic Convention speech: "After my sister's lung-cancer death, I
opposed tobacco for our kids." But, years after his sister's death, he gave pro-tobacco speeches at political rallies-- So,
doesn't that show that he lied in his 1996 speech characterizing his sister's death as a cathartic event changing him from
pro-tobacco to anti-tobacco? Of course not! We just misled ourselves in 1996 by not listening carefully to his 1996 speech.
What he really said in that speech was: "After my sister's lung-cancer death, I, uh, posed tobacco for orchids." © 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--04
A Note to Bill Bradley: Sauce for the Goose ... Those who live in glass houses ... etc.
Bradley, you rightly criticized Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University in South Carolina on 02-03-00 without condemning
it's prior, anti-interracial-marriage dogma. (Never mind that the inter-ethnic marriage of Bush's brother, Jeb, to a hispanic
woman surely demonstrates that the Bush family is not a bunch of bigots.) Will you now criticize yourself for meeting with Al
Sharpton without condemning his racially polarizing behavior? Will you now criticize Hillary Clinton for meeting with Sharpton
without condemning his racially polarizing behavior? © 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--03
A Note to Bush about Campaign Finance "Reform"
So what if it's "bad for Republicans"? Who cares? What matters is that it's bad for free speech -- i.e., bad for America,
which is why you should retract your foolish claim that a satirical, anti-Bush website should be required to "register" under
federal election laws. © 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--02
A Warning to Bush
Despite McCain's class-warfare rhetoric mischaracterizing tax-cuts for everyone as "benefiting the rich"; despite his support of
Orwellian laws mislabeled as Campaign Finance "Reform"; despite his hypocritical support of the anti-tobacco Gestapo while
luxurating in the lap of Big Beer, he's still an honorable man who demonstrated heroism and courage most of us could never
muster. He's a good man with terrible ideas. Trash his terrible ideas but don't trash the man. © 2000
2000-02-04 Daily Update--01
Bob Dole Quotation of the Day (on the Daily Show on Comedy Central)
(02-3-00)
Steve Forbes "has some good characteristics-- they just haven't surfaced yet." © 2000
2000-02-03 Daily Update
McCain: Heroism & Sanctimonious Zealotry--Even heroes can become self-righteously blind
McCain is a hero no doubt,
which gives him such great moral clout
He thinks that the evil
is money, not people,
but free speech is what it's about.
To please a big donor named Keating,
he went to a bureaucrat meeting.
In most pious tones,
he told gov'ment drones:
"Stop giving my friend such a beating."
His feelings of guilt are so great,
on this he no longer thinks straight.
Like drinkers who quit
and then think it's fit
that everyone suffer their fate.
Like most who just want to do good,
he wants to do more than he should.
And so he proposes that
government noses
be into our business for good.
His "money is property" rant
may sound like a quite noble chant
But speech requires money
like bees require honey--
how else can we pay for our rants?
© 2000
2000-02-02 Daily Update
Gore wins among hard-core Democrats
As Granite-heads went to the polls,
they almost left Gore in the cold
But he said with glee,
"Unlike Tennessee,
I didn't
fall short of the goal."
He got almost no independents,
which left him with Clinton's
"descendents."
It soon became plain
they went for McCain
and Bradley was
left with the remnants.
But even in that shrunken field,
Bill Bradley was hot on Gore's heels.
The lesson for Gore:
he will not get more
than those in dependency fields.
© 2000
2000-02-01 Daily Update
Polisat Eats Crow
(re predictions on 2000-01-31)
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Right-- Almost as bad as
government work © 2000
This page
contains Daily Updates for February,
2000. To go to our current
Daily Update Page, click here.
To go to our Archives of Daily Updates, click here..
.
