more animals

To whom it may concern:

May I recommend to you @ this time that you may want to seriously reconsider including the likes of Fox News Channel and/or Fox Business Channel as part of your cable-TV advertising buys now and henceforth.

And for reasons which are well-documented on film and on the Information Stuporbahn, for the record.

However, in case you need clear and compelling reasons to reconsider including Fox News and/or Fox Business in your cable advertising buys, they include clear and compelling patterns of:

• Resorting to borderline softporn for no worthwhile purpose other than to distract audience attention, not to mention use thereof without clear editorial justification.
• Pandering to the crudest and most primitive of prejudices and stereotypes of the poor, immigrants and National Minorities in its reportage--in some cases, depicting such only in a negative and potentially dangerous light.
• Reckless and utter disregard for Truth and Journalistic Integrity in the name of being "fair and balanced" in the face of an imagined "Liberal Media Conspiracy" which reeks of anti-Semitism last seen in Nazi Germany (especially so the weekly tabloid Der Sturmer, notorious in its own right for crude, easily-understood anti-Semitism which may have made the Holocaust all the worse).
• Clear and compelling patterns of hypocritical doublethink without clear editorial justification, reinforced by a "reject all evidence of eyes and ears" mindset.
• Failing to clearly disclose to viewers possible editorial conflicts of interests or "cash-for-comments" setups (in the latter instance, as in payola made to Fox News by the K Street element to push their current "talking points" in the guise of news or commentary), with possible detrius to journalistic integrity and independence.
• A notorious tendency towards vitriolic attack on the part of newsreaders and hosts, which, combined with a target audience for both networks composed mostly of lower-income, undereducated or homeschooled, easily-influenced and socioeconomically-marginalised "white trash" with few or no real job or career skills for a 21st-century socioeconomic model and paradigm, could unwittingly and unconsciously expose not only Fox News and Fox Business, but also News America Corporation (the parent company of both networks in question), to serious criminal as much as civil liability if the tone and tenor of said remarks were to translate into serious action--especially sadistic ultraviolence which, in the right circumstances, can translate into what racists and white supremacists have long held dear as an article of faith: Videlicet, RAHOWA (RAcial HOly WAr), whose sole and only aim is to "reclaim" (as they see it) a White European-American Christian monopoly on power, authority and business "as is their natural birthright," only to be seen as "thwarted" by "Jewish treachery***as threatens to undermine and destroy Christendom." (Not to mention failing to recognise the clear and present danger of exposure to liability.)
• The target audience of both networks having limited purchasing power beyond dollar stores, "liberal credit" retailers, convenience stores with limited grocery selections, "sub-prime" consumer loan and mortgage companies and used-car dealers using high-pressure sales tactics, made all the more galling by Fox News and Fox Business forever insisting that free-market capitalism with American characteristics is, shall we say, the Great White Father of the Lower Classes.

I hope, in so doing, that I have convinced you all the more of the need to reconsider your including Fox News Channel and/or Fox Business Channel in your advertising buys, now and in future. For, in continuing to buy advertising time on either or both networks, you may unwittingly be giving tacit endorsement and sanction to potentially dangerous, sinister and un-American articles of faith as are a staple of their "news" programmes, which include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• racism;
• bigotry;
• anti-Semitism;
• nativism;
• isolationism;
• xenophobia;
• marginalisation of the poor and vulnerable; and
• incitement to violence, criminality, anti-social behaviour and war.

Otherwise, what stands in the way of making a wise and logical choice for the sake of healthy and responsible broadcast journalism which can only divide, rather than unite, Our Nation, than simply dumping Fox News and Fox Business as part of your media buy?

more animals

*************

MEMO TO READERS: Your Correspondent, as is usual practice with these Open Letters, urges you to share this with your friends and others in your e-mail circles--and, hopefully, with such as are known and notorious advertisers on Fox News and/or Fox Business.

However, please avoid "spamming" indiscrimminately; after all, "spam" can only hurt a campaign to the point of undermining any semblance of effectiveness.

READER, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHETHER THE PRECEDING CARTOON HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS--as in the role Winona played in the catastrophic split in the Republican Party's ranks almost 100 years ago.

Specifically, 17 September 1909.

Then-President William Howard Taft made an appearence in Winona to speak about the just-passed Payne-Hartley Tariff Act, as reduced a number of import tariffs on goods brought into the United States, and how such would benefit American industry.

Which, as it turned out, was so badly prepared beforehand that its fallout was significant, creating a split in the GOP's ranks between the Conservative wing (as led by Taft) and the emerging Progressive wing (as led by Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette) which became so devastating to Republican unity that it led to Democrat Woodrow Wilson's election to the Presidency in 1912.

Consider these selections:

My Fellow Citizens:

AS LONG ago as August, 1906, in the Congressional campaign in Maine, I ventured to announce that I was a tariff revisionist and thought that the time had come for readjustment of the schedules. I pointed out that it had been ten years prior to that time that the Dingley Bill had been passed; that great changes had taken place in the conditions surrounding the productions of the farm, the factory, and the mine, and that under the theory of protection in that time the rates imposed in the Dingley Bill in many instances might have become excessive; that is, might have been greater than the difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production at home with a sufficient allowance for a reasonable rate of profit to the American producer. I said that the party was divided on the issue, but that in my judgment the opinion of the party was crystallizing and would probably result in the near future in an effort to make such revision. I pointed out the difficulty that there always was in a revision of the tariff, due to the threatened disturbance of industries to be affected and the suspension of business, in a way which made it unwise to have too many revisions. In the summer of 1907 my position on the tariff was challenged, and I then entered into a somewhat fuller discussion of the matter. It was contended by the so-called "standpatters" that rates beyond the necessary measure of protection were not objectionable, because behind the tariff wall competition always reduced the prices, and thus saved the consumer. But I pointed out in that speech what seems to me as true to-day as it then was, that the danger of excessive rates was in the temptation they created to form monopolies in the protected articles, and thus to take advantage of the excessive rates by increasing the prices, and therefore, and in order to avoid such a danger, it was wise at regular intervals to examine the question of what the effect of the rates had been upon the industries in this country, and whether the conditions with respect to the cost of production here had so changed as to warrant a reduction in the tariff, and to make a lower rate truly protective of the industry.

It will be observed that the object of the revision under such a statement was not to destroy protected industries in this country, but it was to continue to protect them where lower rates offered a sufficient protection to prevent injury by foreign competition. That was the object of the revision as advocated by me, and it was certainly the object of the revision as promised in the Republican platform.

I want to make as clear as I can this proposition, because, in order to determine whether a bill is a compliance with the terms of that platform, it must be understood what the platform means. A free trader is opposed to any protective rate because he thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. Now, certainly the promises of the platform did not contemplate the downward revision of the tariff rates to such a point that any industry theretofore protected should be injured. Hence, those who contend
that the promise of the platform was to reduce prices by letting in foreign competition are contending for a free trade and not for anything that they had the right to infer from the Republican platform.

The Ways and Means Committee of the House, with Mr. Payne at its head, spent a full year in an investigation, assembling evidence in reference to the rates under the tariff, and devoted an immense amount of work to the study of the question where the tariff rates could be reduced and where they ought to be raised with a view to maintaining a reasonably protective rate, under the principles of the platform, for every industry that deserved protection. They found that the determination of the question, what was the actual cost of production and whether an industry in this country could live under a certain rate and withstand threatened competition from abroad, was most difficult. The manufacturers were prone to exaggerate the injury which a reduction in the duty would give and to magnify the amount of duty that was needed; while the importers, on the other hand, who were interested in developing the importation from foreign shores, were quite likely to be equally biased on the other side.

Mr. Payne reported a bill — the Payne tariff bill — which went to the Senate and was amended in the Senate by increasing the duty on some things and decreasing it on others. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill was very much less than the newspapers represented. It turns out upon examination that the reductions in the Senate were about equal to those in the House, though they differed in character. Now. there is nothing quite so difficult as the discussion of a tariff bill, for the reason that it covers so many different items, and the meaning of the terms and the percentages are very hard to understand. The passage of a new bill, especially where a change in the method of assessing the duties has been followed, presents an opportunity for various modes and calculations of the percentages of increases and decreases that are most misleading and really throw no light at all upon the changes made. 
  
One way of stating what was done is to say what the facts show — that under the Dingley law there were 2,024 items. This included dutiable items only. The Payne law leaves 1,150 of these items unchanged. There are decreases in 654 of the items and increases in 220 of the items. Now, of course, that does not give a full picture, but it does show the proportion of decreases to have been three times those of the increases....

[***]

Now, the promise of the Republican platform was not to revise everything downward, and in the speeches which have been taken as interpreting that platform, which I made in the campaign, I did not promise that everything should go downward. What I promised was, that there should be many decreases, and that in some few things increases would be found to be necessary; but that on the whole I conceived that the change of conditions would make the revision necessarily downward — and that, I contend, under the showing which I have made, has been the result of the Payne bill. I did not agree, nor did the Republican party agree, that we would reduce rates to such a point as to reduce prices by the introduction of foreign competition. That is what the free traders desire. That is what the revenue-tariff reformers desire; but that is not what the Republican platform promised, and it is not what the Republican party wished to bring about. To repeat the statement with which I opened this speech, the proposition of the Republican party was to reduce rates so as to maintain a difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, insuring a reasonable profit to the manufacturer on all articles produced in this country; and the proposition to reduce rates and prevent their being excessive was to avoid the opportunity for monopoly and the suppression of competition, so that the excessive rates could be taken advantage of to force prices up.

[***]

On the whole, however, I am bound to say that I think the Payne tariff bill is the best tariff bill that the Republican party ever passed; that in it the party has conceded the necessity for following the changed conditions and reducing tariff rates accordingly. This is a substantial achievement in the direction of lower tariffs and downward revision, and it ought to be accepted as such. Critics of the bill utterly ignore the very tremendous cuts that have been made in the iron schedule, which heretofore has been subject to criticism in all tariff bills. From iron ore, which was cut 75 per cent., to all the other items as low as 20 per cent., with an average of something like 40 or 50 per cent., that schedule has been reduced so that the danger of increasing; prices through a monopoly of the business is very much lessened, and that was the chief purpose of revising the tariff downward under Republican protective principles. The severe critics of the bill pass this reduction in the metal schedule with a sneer, and say that the cut did not hurt the iron interests of the country. Well, of course it did not hurt them. It was not expected to hurt them. It was expected only to reduce excessive rates, so that business should still be conducted at a profit, and the very character of the criticism is an indication of the general injustice of the attitude of those who make it, in assuming that it was the promise of the Republican party to hurt the industries of the country by the reductions which they were to make in the tariff, whereas it expressly indicated as plainly as possible in the platform that all of the industries were to be protected against injury by foreign competition, and the promise only went to the reduction of excessive rates beyond what was necessary to protect them.

The high cost of living, of which 50 per cent, is consumed in food, 25 per cent, in clothing, and 25 per cent, in rent and fuel, has not been produced by the tariff, because the tariff has remained the same while the increases have gone on. It is due to the change of conditions the world over. Living has increased everywhere in cost — in countries where there is free trade and in countries where there is protection — and that increase has been chiefly seen in the cost of food products. In other words we have had to pay more for the products of the farm, for meat, for grain, for everything that enters into food. Now, certainly no one will contend that protection has increased the cost of food in this country, when the fact is that we have been the greatest exporters of food products in the world. It is only that the demand has increased beyond the supply, that farm lands have not been opened as rapidly as the population and the demand has increased. I am not saying that the tariff does not increase prices in clothing and in building and in other items that enter into the necessities of life, but what I wish to emphasize is that the recent increases in the cost of living in this country have not been due to the tariff. We have a much higher standard of living in this country than they have abroad and this has been made possible by higher income for the workingman, the farmer, and all classes. Higher wages have been made possible by the encouragement of diversified industries, built up and fostered by the tariff.

Now, the revision downward of the tariff that I have favored will not, I hope, destroy the industries of the country. Certainly it is not intended to. All that it is intended to do, and that is what I wish to repeat, is to put the tariff where it will protect industries here from foreign competition, but will not enable those who will wish to monopolize to raise prices by taking advantage of excessive rates beyond the normal difference in the cost of production.

If the country desires free trade, and the country desires a revenue tariff and wishes the manufacturers all over the country to go out of business, and to have cheaper prices at the expense of the sacrifice of many of our manufacturing interests, then it ought to say so and ought to put the Democratic party in power if it thinks that party can be trusted to carry out any affirmative policy in favor of a revenue tariff. Certainly in the discussions in the Senate there was no great manifestation on the part of our Democratic friends in favor of reducing rates on necessities. They voted to maintain the tariff rates on everything that came from their particular sections. If we are to have free trade, certainly it can not be had through the maintenance of Republican majorities in the Senate and House and a Republican administration.

[***]

This is a government by a majority of the people. It is a representative government. People select some 400 members to constitute the lower House and some 92 members to constitute the upper House through their legislatures, and the varying views of a majority of the voters in eighty or ninety millions of people are reduced to one resultant force to take affirmative steps in carrying on a government by a system of parties. Without parties popular government would be absolutely impossible. In a party those who join it, if they would make it effective, must surrender their personal predilections on matters comparatively of less importance in order to accomplish the good which united action on the most important principles at issue secures.

Now, I am not here to criticize those Republican Members and Senators whose views on the subject of the tariff were so strong and intense that they believed it their duty to vote against their party on the tariff bill. It is a question for each man to settle for himself. The question is whether he shall help maintain the party solidarity for accomplishing its chief purposes, or whether the departure from principle in the bill as he regards it is so extreme that he must in conscience abandon the party....

[***]

I have tried to state as strongly as I can, but not more strongly than I think the facts justify, the importance of not disturbing the business interests of this country by an attempt in this Congress or the next to make a new revision; but in the meantime I intend, so far as in me lies, to secure official data upon the operation of the tariff, from which, when a new revision is attempted, exact facts can be secured.

I have appointed a tariff board that has no brief for either side in respect to what the rates shall be. I hope they will make their observations and note their data in their record with exactly the same impartiality and freedom from anxiety as to result with which the Weather Bureau records the action of the elements or any scientific bureau of the Government records the results of its impartial investigations. Certainly the experience in this tariff justifies the statement that no revision should hereafter be attempted in which more satisfactory evidence of an impartial character is not secured.

I am sorry that I am not able to go further into detail with respect to the tariff bill, but I have neither the information nor the time in which to do it. I have simply stated the case as it seemed to Mr. Tawney in his vote and as it seemed to me in my signing the bill. 

And the fallout was tremendous, to say the least.

And that it all happened in Winona on that September evening in 1909! 

more animals

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN PENNSYLVANIA IS TRYING TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM AN AIDE WHO CLAIMS HE WAS "ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS" in sending an atrocity e-mail for "winning of hearts and minds" among The Keystone State's Jewish Community warning of a Second Holocaust should Democratic candidate Barack Obama win the Presidency.

Methinks the e-mail is tending to projection, as if seeking to avoid suspicions of weird and unwholesome associations vis-a-vis the GOP and the Religiopolitical Right (what with their Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin having associations with such specimens of Pentecostalism holding staunch anti-Semitic articles of faith).

=============

SPEAKING OF THE GOP, MAY I SUGGEST WHERE, IN VIEW OF THEIR WEIRD AND UNWHOLESOME ASSOCIATIONS AND CONNEXIONS NOW UNRAVELLING BIG TIME, may I be one to suggest that the GOP consider cleaning house of its associations with not only the Elmer Gantry element, but also their friends among the Dregs of Society.

And that their card-carrying rank-and-file should consider resigning their memberships all the sooner, especially considering where many of the GOP's more prominent officials are endorsing Barack Obama in view of his presenting a Weltanschauung as is closer to a pure conservative view than the perverted travesty laden with distracting side issues.

=============

AND WITH FRESH RUMOURS SURFACING OF VOTE SUPPRESSION TACTICS TENDING TO THE OBNOXIOUSLY LOATHSOME heading into Indecision 2008, maybe it was time to ask if we may have learned the lessons of electoral manipulation and perversion since the last Presidential such in 2004.

Especially so in light of reports of where touch-screen voting termini @ early-voting stations in several Southern states are flipping votes from Democratic to Republican candidates, especially where "straight-party" tickets are involved.

So what is the FBI doing about this?

And what exactly precludes a serious return to paper ballots if the real desire is one of "maintaining electoral integrity and purity"?

=============

MEANWHILE, PERHAPS THE BEST RESPONSE I CAN RECOMMEND TO SUCH CALLING YOU WITH CAREFULLY-SCRIPTED AND -NUANCED "ROBOCALL" MESSAGES vis-a-vis Indecision 2008, especially so in areas where they must be delivered by a live operator (Minnesota in particular), is to tell the operator "May the best candidate win"--guaranteed to annoy the operator @ the phone bank more than anything, and then some.

(Or so Motherdear thinks.)

However, in case the operator calling you resorts to Billingsgate in response, hang up posthaste; Federal law prohibits use of obscene and indecent language telephonically, under pain of fine and/or imprisonment.

*************

EVEN WITH CRUDE OIL FUTURES NOW AS LOW AS $60/BBL ON THE NYMEX, GAS PRICES FALLING BELOW $2.50/GALLON IN SOME AREAS, and OPEC announcing a production cut from next month of 1,000,000 bbls/day (about 4% of total crude output), Your Correspondent feels this is not the time to go back to wasteful and profligate ways of automotive commuting, and excusing such as necessary for G-d and Country.

On the contrary, he feels this is as good a time as any to "stay the course" on cutting back non-essential driving, maintaining fuel economy (which goes beyond merely checking tyre pressure) and using public transportation to the extent feasable. Especially where ice and snow are the norms during the winter months.

As for your holiday shopping ... consider doing so online, the better to save not only fuel, but also bedlam and confusion. (This blog is pleased to have plenty of online-shopping selection, I will have you know.)

*************

TELL ME IF HIS FRAUDULENCY'S MINDSET AND MENTALITY IN HIS ADDRESS TO THE NATION YESTERDAY in calling for patience and understanding vis-a-vis the emerging socioeconomic crisis could be one of (paraphrasing Alabama Governor George Wallace's infamous remark) "Capitalism now, capitalism tomorrow, capitalism FOREVER! FOREVER!! And make that the starting point of your [N4BSK]ing thoughts!"

Was it, methinks, a subtle appeal to vote the McCain/Palin ticket, what with its playing the "closet Marxist" card against Barack Obama, to win over the so-called "Real America"?

And speaking of a so-called "Real America," Rosa Brooks has the following rather interesting op-ed (via the new improved cyber version of The Capital Times) which seeks to deflate this latest foray into sugar-coated GOP mythology:

Will the "real" America please stand up?

According to Sarah Palin, she and John McCain "believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hardworking, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

Um, very, um. ... Yeah.

Palin later backed away from these remarks, but the McCain-Palin campaign's staff and surrogates--and even the guy at the top of the ticket--keep hammering the same message: Some parts of America--and some Americans--are just more authentic and "pro-America" than others.

Recently, for instance, McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer suggested that although northern Virginia may have "gone more Democratic," "real Virginia" (the "part of the state that's more Southern in nature") will be "very responsive" to McCain. Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., joined the chorus, telling the crowd at a McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God."

Hayes, like Palin, later forswore his remarks, but on Tuesday in western Pennsylvania--one of the few parts of the state where Barack Obama doesn't hold a clear lead--McCain worked the same theme: Western Pennsylvania "is the most God-loving, most patriotic part of America."

The GOP code isn't hard to crack: There's the America that might vote for Obama (a suspect America populated by people with liberal notions, big-city ways and, no doubt, dark skin), and then there's the "real" America, where people live in small towns, believe in God and country, and are ... well ... white.

The divisive GOP rhetoric we've been hearing lately is hardly new. But with each passing year, the "real" America of GOP mythmaking bears less and less resemblance to the America most Americans live in.

About 80 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas, not small towns. A third of us are ethnic and racial minorities, but that's changing: Already, nearly 45 percent of children under 5 are minorities. Although 88 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent think that religions other than our own are equally valid routes to truth. And while 59 percent of us think that wearing an American flag pin is a decent way to show patriotism, even more of us (66 percent) think that protesting U.S. policies we oppose is a good way to show patriotism. These days, more than half of us say we prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Given this, why do McCain, Palin and their team keep pushing the message that the America where most of the electorate lives isn't "real"?

The GOP hasn't been the party of reality-based thinking for some time now. "When we act, we create our own reality," a "senior Bush adviser" (assumed to be Karl Rove) told journalist Ron Suskind in 2002, and this became the administration's version of a game plan. Thus Donald Rumsfeld's conviction--shared by McCain--that we would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq. For GOP leaders, the Iraq that erupted into a violent insurgency just wasn't the "real" Iraq.

We're now seeing the same pathology at work in the McCain-Palin campaign. McCain and Palin look at America and see what they wish was there, rather than what's actually there: an America in which they'll be greeted as liberators and rightful heirs to the mantle of leadership. America, after all, has been led by white Anglo-Saxons for the last two-plus centuries and, for the last 40 years, mostly by Republicans. For that to change is almost unthinkable. And so Team McCain just edits out the inconvenient America that doesn't seem likely to vote GOP. That America's not real. It just can't be.

I'm not entirely without sympathy. Behind the anger and the us-vs.-them rhetoric we've seen at recent McCain-Palin rallies, there's a palpable sense of dislocation and anxiety: the anxiety of those who feel that things are slipping away from them, that the world is changing too quickly and too uncomfortably. Change has come fast--and change hurts.

But that's how it's always been. Our culture was built by immigrants and shaped by wars, social upheavals, economic crises and further rounds of immigration, each time from places that seemed deeply "foreign" to those who had already settled in. Each round of change was painful to those used to the temporary status quo--but each round of change also gave us a richer, stronger nation.

That's the real America: a land of change and perpetual renewal.

Let's stand up for it.

more animals

FUNNY THING HOW THE DAWN CAN TRICK YOU INTO BELIEVING THAT A NICE DAY IS AHEAD, only to have clouds come in to spoil the picture as per the forecast.

Which is the way things are here in the Minnwissippi as I write you this. That, and its being chilly with a slight breeze (although expect things to get even more crazy tomorrow, with winds likely to exceed 30-40 mph [48-64 km/hr], in turn translating into acceleration of leaf drops as have already occured wholesale over recent days.

Enough reason to stay inside and listen to the satellite radio while surfing the Information Stuporbahn as well....

*************

MEMO TO THE FBI (AND, IN A WAY, THE POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE): As the current socioeconomic crisis risks further collapse and deterioration to the detrius of the Joe Sixpack element in particular, you may want to be on the watch and ward for all manner of "cashflow gifting" and "Aussie one-up" schemes promising big-big money with little or no real effort so long as the same is perpetuate--and manages to evade detection.

Especially so under 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television), what with many such scams likely to employ PayPal and suchlike all the more to evade the Postal Inspection Service (and all the while invoke the majesty and authority of 18 USC 1302 and 1341 to create an aura of credibility and legality) ... not to mention the Information Stuporbahn, by and large, using telephonic, fiber optic and broadband cable/CATV wirelines for the sake of 18 USC 1343's proscribing wire fraud.

Even more so if the letters and/or e-mails tend to the suspiciously glowing-sounding, the better to trick or deceive--never mind their seeking to subtly exploit current socioeconomic uncertainty not unlike the Depression-era "Send-A-Dime" chain letters.

And remember, too, that "the infinite prosperity of the universe" is anything but, considering where such scams have finite limits beyond which only collapse is inevitable for want of fresh capital. Consider what happens if you're asked to repeat the chain fivefold:

5
25
125
625
3,125
15,625
78,125
390,625
1,953,125
9,765,625
48,828,125
244,140,625
1,220,703,125
6,103,515,625

In other words, you would need to circulate the same scheme to pretty much everyone on the planet before any profit can be realised on your part ... and who has the money to do so? No wonder such schemes risk inevitable collapse (with loss of money ensuing) in the end, the point of which, alas for it! is downplayed (and perhaps deliberately) by those involved in its perpetuation.

*************

GOP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL WANNABE SARAH PALIN'S PARTY-FUNDED ATTEMPT TO SHAME THE LOWER CLASSES INTO SUPPORTING THE GOP TICKET through a $150,000 high-end wardrobe makeover, methinks, has that certain aroma of one Eva Peron's using high-end fashion while presenting herself to Argentina's "shirtless ones" after World War II as their saviour and salvation under the first Juan Peron regime, through the government-sponsored Eva Duarte Peron Foundation.

Talk about your gross hypocrisy right there.

*************

WITH "BULK E-MAIL MARKETING" (READ: SPAMMING) NOT A VERY VIABLE OR COST-EFFICENT WEBLOG MARKETING OPTION, as well as tending to the disreputable, Your Correspondent has to find all manner of free no-cost options to call attention to the blog by honest and above-board means.

One such is in form of BlogWeekends, which continues MyRoomie ... another is BlogMad, as I've been using since soon after the blog was launched.

Those two being what are known as "traffic exchanges," whereby members view the blogs of fellow members in rotation in exchange for traffic credits as, in their turn, can attract site traffic. And which also use banner-swap exchanges to help increase traffic, or try to, among fellow members.

So, fellow bloggers wanting attention, check these helpful resources out rather than "bulk e-mail marketing," which can be unethical and expensive in more ways than one.

*************

AND ONE THING MORE: Doesn't it speak volumes for the lengths people will go to get value for money when they find (as I did just this morning) that the pound cake sold @ the local dollar store actually weighs 10 ounces avoirdupois?  

more animals

AS PART OF ITS ONGOING MISSION TO EXPOSE TO AIR AND SUNLIGHT THE CRUDEST EXCESSES OF RELIGIOPOLITICAL RIGHT PROPAGANDA, the Right Wing Watch blog of People For the American Way would like to call to your attention the following video, as presented by a group styling themselves as "ValuesVotersUSA," as explains for you, plainly and simply, their articles of faith.

Without further elaboration:

(Right Wing Watch does note where "ValuesVotersUSA" appears to be a United Front movement involving the likes of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and Wallbuilders acting en bloc, and sub rosa, for the McCain/Palin ticket.

(If this message doesn't make you recognise what the Religiopolitical Right really stands for....)