http://udhr.org/UDHR/

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948)

Adopted on December 10, 1948
by the General Assembly of the United Nations (without dissent)

A wine-o jug? okay. no sips nat.

moths fly away. Ya zip mouth Up.

be nice. hide stash cash in a jug.

I sit at the asocial table with bug?

Bah, want a big stock tip? Go buy?

Buy mitten, and hang with kittens.

Plant a white marshmallow bush.

hummingbirds love candy sweets?

Red and white candy-cane season.

Bah. No misunderstand. hug bugs.

- just found out that Blago might not need a lawyer at - he is one all by himself!

Ben F. said:`There may only be only one honest lawyer.

A brown egg layer never fails. Pete, a hen lays faithfully.

Ben F. was right about beer. God loves to sip cold beers.

Much less thinkin'

Best get back

To my inter-galactic translator

Tinkerin'

A baker who turns a new leaf, and becomes a simple astrophysicist.

Then, becomes a blogger who sits all day in briefs and anklet socks.

Who needs to buy to buy penny loafers? Who can afford two pennies?

It's time to hitch-hike to Wall Market. Steal red and white candy canes.

We have a new Contributor of the Week.

link at sig

Bob Dylan's:`Ain't Talkin'.

Walk in between the dark.

Find a shiny space, a Place.

With a grave's narrowness,

and there is the rest, Peace.

That grave's narrowing

Sounds pretty harrowing

I've been reading the major "leftwing" blogs this morning, since Hildebrand's teacup tempest hinges on his view of them as a monolithic, gate-crashing Ogre of Opinion. There is push-back in the posts, but also much scolding of the "Progressives" in comments for their wretched temerity in questioning HRH, the President-Elect. Two major themes seems to be 1) that it's too "early" to voice opinions about his actions and 2) that our many troubles are so overwhelming, all his loyal subjects must be still, and allow him to rule in peace.

Now, seeing as how I'm no "Progressive" I shouldn't feel targeted by this feeble outpouring of "centrist" rectitude. Unfortunately, it still bothers me. Other peoples' extreme desire to be led, rather than to be equal participants in the governing of the nation -- that sort of servile shit has long disgusted me, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

This nation is in a particular spot of trouble right now, but it has been just as imperiled in the past. Our present socio-economic disaster is not worse than the hyper-inflation & loss of market access that befell the nation right after the Revolutionary War (the British transferred much of their mercantile trade to Canada, India, and eventually, Australia during the decades after independence).
But, our founders weren't sniveling in public about the need to bow before a New King. So why are so many commenters on "left-liberal" blogs railing on about our duty to bow before the wishes of the President-Elect?

Times will always be "interesting". We will always face real and trumped up troubles. That will never excuse these demands for a servile citizenry.

Now that I've said something sensible.... may I go back to laughing at poor Mr. Hildebrand? It's too damned much fun to stop now.

Klatu barrada nikto.

It is fascinating to watch the--not very--progressive left wing of the Democratic party twist and turn to justify the totally unjustifiable Obama appointments. They prove, once more, that they have little or no influence on actual policies in the Democratic party. They also prove, once more, that their political stance leads to little or no substance when dealing with the ideology of "pragmatic" rationales for the same old garbage that we have come to expect from the Democrats. What is absolutely fascinating, however, is their accomodation to the economic wreck without even the beginning of questioning of the justifications for an economic system that does not work very well in terms of promoting the public good. We can expect every bad public policy regarding the transportation system, education, social welfare, etc. etc. to be engraved in stone using the chisel of the enormous amount of bailout money that the Democrats will use to buy a short period of peace before the next crisis, which will in turn be traceable to the failure of the bailout to address the real problems, hits home.

~Mooser. I like the updates too. But the Links go well with a crust of bread and such.

You can, of course, help yourself, but don't take too much!

But listen, since nobody asked me here's how I got through the five stages of Obama:

Whatever Obama does, whomever he picks to work for him, there is a fundamental difference between his administration, whatever it brings us, and the last eight years: Obama is not, by nature, nurture, and long practice, a con and a criminal. The Bush administration was no more than a rather-to-be-expected extension of Bush's and Cheney's lives until now, they fucked up, they served their "friends", and the entire faith and credit of the US was engaged in either ameliorating, obfuscating, or justifying their criminality and fuck-ups. And shoveling cash and contracts to their friends. Obama may not be as liberal or progressive as many want him to be, or think he must be. I guess we will find out. Nor does he seem to be delivering the righteous smack-downs and swift justice many (myselfs among them) beleive the neo-cons and their governmental enablers deserve But nothing he has done his entire life indicates to me that Obama is the type of criminal that Bush/Cheney and their neo-con buddies were.

I think it's become very difficult for people to remember the US Government can possibly act as anything but a criminal organisation, at least in how it makes decisions. It's become very difficult for people to remember when we could debate the merits of different policies, instead of their basic legality. Think of how many facets (my apologies to all self-respecting gems) of the Bush/Cheney administration that covers!

I think that whatever Obama does, he will do it much more in accord with what we have traditionally and legally expected from our Government; policies will be more fully explicated, process will be more transparent and more democratic.

And that alone will make a fundamental change for the better in the US. Whatever he does. And it's not hard to expect, because it's in character with how Obama has acted for his entire adult life.

That's a big change from Bush, or for that matter McCain, and one that makes it much easier to trust, at least to the extent that it is appropriate to trust, Obama.

Okay, put it like this: While I may not agree with what Obama chooses to do, I can, at least for the time being, trust that the policies he presents are not completely based on lies and misinformation, and are presented as honestly as possible. That is a huge change. And that is the change the Repubs are most frightened of, and have the most interest in obscuring Apart from health insurance, relief from economic exigencies and emergencies, the idea that Americans can once again trust (to the extent appropriate for politics...) their government will be a death-blow to the Republicans. (For them Obama/Biden must be just a Democratic Bush/Cheney which is where you get some of that annoying confluence of criticisms between the right and far-left)

Edelbrock Offenhauser, I hope that answers your questions. In any case, your unwarranted asperity and immediate resort to personal insult is unappreciated.