In Confronting Todays
"Young" Job Market, Americans Over Fifty Can Still "Radical"
& Roll !
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Tuesday, October 3, 2000
I was talking
presidential politics with a friend of mine yesterday. He's 56. He's a tenured professor
in the social sciences at an accredited university in the United States.
He claims that
Ralph Nader is the answer to what ails America because Nader is willing to confront
'politics as usual' at every opportunity.
The difference
between my buddy and me is: he's willing to get out and form a "Green Party" at
the grassroots level while I sit back and let him do all the work, meanwhile hoping to
reap the benefits of 'his' work.
My buddy is
radical about his political beliefs.
He's so radical
that I find him offensive. And therein lies my thesis.
Most of us
boomers were socialized not to make waves.
While it was OK
for us to gather as flower children, after we 'grew up' we were supposed to be quiet and
take our rightful places amongst the ranks of the 'silent majority.'
But, older,
silent, Americans who seek employment in today's job market are paying a high price for
their silence.
America's best
jobs are being offered to young Americans.
Why you ask?
Because
America's best employers, i.e., those upstarts in silicon valley, etc., are blatantly
advertising for young job applicants.
For example,
Future Computer, a Mountain View, CA, high tech outfit starts their recruiting ad as
follows:
"San
Francisco Technical Recruitment firm seeks talented individuals to join it's young,
progressive and expanding team."
In another ad,
Future Computer tells potential job applicants:
"Located
in Manhattan, this young, agile group of professionals is pioneering a technology that
will change the way people navigate the web. Duties: Candidates must..."
Rambus, Inc., another high
tech outfit tells potential job applicants:
"Rambus is a young,
successful and energetic company looking for a creative and enthusiastic individual to
join our team."
Then there's New Boston
Systems who say:
"Looking for an entry
level person who is young, aggressive, and willing to learn SAP & E-Commerce (on a
business to business/ Sql server level)."
Then there's Sun
Microsystems who advertise:
"Server Division is
recruiting a junior writer to join its publications team. This position represents an
opportunity for an energetic and talented young writer to gain experience in the field of
technical communication while making a contribution to a new product line at Sun
server..."
And, Social Net advertises:
"The team is fun and
young, the management from leading consumer, media and Internet companies. The company is
backed by leading Silicon Valley venture capital..."
Then Management Solutions,
Inc. says in their recruiting ad:
" tremendous growth
opportunity in this well-financed company. Enjoy a casual and flexible environment and the
innovative ideas and leadership of a bright, young management team. Job Tasks:Join
e-commerce web applications team Work closely with advanced in-house designers,
programmers..."
And Northpoint
Communications says in their ad:
"Previous experience in
training a young, aggressive, non-technical sales force is a plus."
Hewlett Packard says in
their recruiting ad:
"As a Corporate admin
Assistant you are part of the small, dynamic and young office management team of the
OpenView IT Service Management Operation."
Help!
Maybe those of us who are
over fifty should consider forming the "Radical" and Roll Party.
Do you think we could get
Ralph Nader to emcee our first convention?
And the perfect place for
this 'event' would be in Silicon Valley, California.
I suggest that we pitch
tents on the well trimmed corporate lawns of these "young" outfits and hand them
flowers as they exit on the way to the bank to deposit their paychecks.
'Oiling' the
Election Over the Objections of Millionaires
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink,
Monday, September 25, 2000
I live and work in an
impoverished area of the United States: Arkansas.
A majority of Arkansans
receive some form of income assistance to pay for basic necessities, i.e., food, shelter,
energy bills, and health care.
Arkansas' economy is highly
stratified with the 'have nots' outnumbering the 'haves' 10-1.
When President Bill Clinton
announced last week that he was freeing up some of the nation's oil reserves to assist low
income families, millionaire Republican's characterized his act as 'politically
motivated.'
Perhaps it was.
And if freeing up the
reserves enhances the lives of impoverished Americans during the winter of 2000, I say
hooray!
Look, we all know that an
'event' like this only occurs every four years.
During non-election years,
it's business as usual, i.e., the millionaire 'haves' determine political policy. And the
millionaire 'haves' decide who will stay warm during the winter and who will not.
I like election years.
It makes me 'warm' inside to
know that there will be fewer cold Americans this winter.
And, maybe we could change
our presidential elections to occur every 'two' years.
That way some of the 'have
nots' could enjoy more of the benefits of the 'resources' of the United States.
Otherwise, impoverished
Americans will have to wait out the off election years and pray that the winters are mild.
And while they wait
millionaire Republican's will squander their pocket change on expensive lifestyles and
never, but never, spend one cold, drafty, night without heat for their homes.
Persnickety
Proclamations!
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
Look, this is the thing,
when Matt Drudge writes something on his website, you have to consider the source.
Take his latest brag for
example: "Chart Upset: Drudge Book Topples Koppel."
Well, so what?!
Does that mean the
persnickety lil' non-writer is making any money at his non-writing gig?
I DON'T 'TINK' SO!
Amazon.com has already
marked his little tome down about $5.00 bucks, AND, one of out of four of it's reviewers
panned it.
Further, I know Ted Koppel,
and Matt is no Ted Koppel!
So for all Matt Drudge's
'proclamations' and 'divulgences' his 'manifesto' isn't 'disclosing' the 'dollars.'
Gosh, I hate that.
###
Determined Deliberate Dishonest
Disputation= DEBATE
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Wednesday, October 11, 2000
During this
year's Presidential debate, Vice President Al Gore-D, and Texas Governor George Bush-R,
have carefully perfected the art of hiking their legs against one another and then
pretending they have done nothing wrong.
And the truth is, neither
one of these two men have good enough 'aim' to eliminate (no pun intended) the other's
candidacy.
So I've decided to vote for
the lesser of the two evils.
I'm voting for Vice
President Al Gore.
This is why:
1. Al Gore is the better
qualified candidate. He has spent many years competently and thoughtfully performing his
duties as a Congressman and as a Vice President.
2. Al Gore is honest.
3. George Bush is not
honest. Read Mother Jone's, "Bush Family Value$, the
inside story of how three of the Bush boys built private fortunes by trading on their
father's name, running with con men, lining their own pockets, and leaving financial ruin
in their wake".
4. Al Gore is
psychologically stable.
5. George Bush is not
psychologically stable.
6. Bush is a reformed
alcoholic who has gone broke at least once in his life.
7. Bush is a man who was
born into a fabulously wealthy family.
8. Bush benefited from
extraordinary advantages afforded him by his family, and yet in the face of those
financial boosts, Bush STILL WENT BROKE!
9. Bush is a practicing
hypocrite. And he has one heck of a nerve LYING about our Vice President's honesty given
HIS past!
Meanwhile, a low voter turn
out is predicted for this year's Presidential election.
And, the two Presidential
candidates are depending upon low voter interest in order to continue their embarrassing,
headline grabbing, campaign styles.
For if there were
substantial interest among Americans, I submit that Bush and Gore would, both, clean up
their campaigns and practice civility and decorum.
Meanwhile, for those of us
who are interested in the outcome of this year's election, we are forced to have to endure
Bush's and Gore's highly public, antisocial, acts while we pretend they aren't committing
them.
###
Wicked
Wretch of the Left
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Tuesday, October 10, 2000
Wick Wretch, or
Left Wick, take your pick, is the latest description of Al Gore to light up the right wing
internet chat boards, of which there are too many.
The Rights
outnumber the Left Wicks 20-1 on the internet. And the Rights only focus on dispensing and
propagating misinformation about Al Gore. It's like nothing else is happening in the
world!
Don't these
people ever take a break to go to the grocery store, or do their laundry, or pay their
bills, or talk to their families, or do other things normal people do?
But, back to my
thesis. Let's examine the facts about Al Gore.
To begin with,
notwithstanding the Rights mischaracterization of him, Al Gore is not a liar.
Further, Al
Gore is eminently qualified to be President. Far more so than George Bush, the
intellectual lightweight, who hasn't made up his mind what he wants to do with his life
when he grows up.
The fact that
Al the Candidate is an honest, decent, man who is very qualified to be President has
placed him directly in the sights of the fanatic right wing internet crowd.
And the Rights
are having a field day tossing polls numbers around, and slashing and burning their way
through any opposition to their disbursement of volumes of misinformation about Candidate
Gore.
What is
especially amusing is when the Rights slash and burn each other.
Take the latest
dot.com war between Etherzone.com and Lucianne.com.
It's a hoot.
It's better than Saturday morning cartoons. It's better than the NY Times on Sunday
morning. It's better than sex!!!
And it's free
entertainment. Just log on. Go to Lucianne.com, then go to Behind the Headlines. From there
follow the links provided. And voila! You have REAL entertainment.
In the
meantime, Al Gore is being libeled, slandered, defamed, and undermined as a legitimate
Presidential candidate.
And the Rights
pick, George W. Bush, could not lead his way out of a campaign watercloset to save his
inept candidacy!
And the Left
Wicks are sitting back on their better sides trying to figure out why Al Gore's lead in
the polls is slipping.
Too Little
Too Late:
Safe
Abortions Are Finally Available
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Friday, September 29, 2000
I grew up in
the fifties and sixties. Abortions were not legal then.
But hundreds of
thousands of illegal abortions were obtained, and they were dangerous and life threatening
to the women who underwent the procedure.
Typically, in a
non-sterile environment, a rubber catheter was inserted into a woman's uterus.
Then the uterus
was packed with gauze to keep the catheter in place.
Over the course
of a few hours, the womb ejected the unwanted fetus.
The catheter
procedure was dangerous because it was performed with non-sterile instruments in a
non-sterile environment by non-medical personnel.
Patients who
underwent this procedure were at a high risk for infection.
Also, the
procedure frequently maimed, rendered sterile, and sometimes killed the woman.
That American
women FOR YEARS employed this method to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is a testament to
our second class status in American society.
And it has
taken death after death after death after death of America's best women before the United
States government has finally allowed women the option of terminating a pregnancy without
risking her life via the ingestion of mifepristone, or RU-486.
My thoughts
today are with the hundreds of thousands of American women who have died obtaining illegal
and legal abortions via the old methods.
Just as there
is a Vietnam Wall, there should be a national wall on the mall in our nation's capital
which lists the hundreds of thousands of names of women who have died unnecessarily from
surgical abortion procedures.
They didn't
have to die. They shouldn't have died.
The United
States government should NOT have placed our best American women in the position of having
to choose unsafe methods of terminating pregnancies.
I celebrate
yesterday's decision by the FDA to approve the sale and distribution of RU-486.
This historic
decision has, at long last, brought the curtain down on centuries of unnecessary deaths of
good and decent American women who have ALWAYS had the inalienable right to choose, and
obtain, a SAFE abortion.
Dick Morris
Is A 'Likeable' Liar
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink,
Tuesday, September 26, 2000
As I was
settling into bed last night and looking forward to a restful night recouping from a nasty
bout of the flu, I happened to surf to Fox News and the 'O'Reilly Factor.'
There was
feisty Dick Morris espousing political wit, and there was Bill O'Reilly interrupting him, as
usual.
Since I have
watched these two men work together before, I "almost" surfed on by.
Then, WHOOPS!
Morris
'chirruped' something that jarred me awake from my relaxed state and compelled me to get
up out of the bed and sit 'back' down and write this piece.
Let me begin by
saying:
1. I like Dick
Morris. He's among the most intelligent people currently appearing on talk news shows.
2. Morris is
VERY insightful and knowledgeable about his subject: American political processes.
3. Morris is
entertaining in his presentations. He has a well developed sense of humor and sense of the
absurd, and he appears to be a likeable guy.
Morris'
'likeability' goes a long way with me.
Which leads me
to my thesis.
Last night on
the 'O'Reilly Factor,' Morris stated the following:
"The
current Presidential campaign is issue-less. And unless the candidates begin talking about
issues, Bush is going to win because the public likes him better than Al
Gore."
Wait a moment!
Hold on there!
To begin with,
I read the same polls as Morris does, and that is NOT what the current polls indicate.
The fact is
Gore is ahead of Bush in his 'likeability' by women. And women, mind you, will
decide this years presidential election.
Why would
Morris make such a grossly inaccurate statement?
And at this
point I hereby chastise Bill O'Reilly for allowing Morris to get away it.
What's with
these two guys?
Have they sold
out to the Bush Campaign?
I doubt it.
I'm willing to
give them, both, the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to sloppy, lazy, irresponsible,
journalism.
And maybe, just
maybe, Morris' is still holding a grudge against the Clinton's for kicking him out of the
White House. And maybe Morris is taking it out on Gore. Who knows?
Whatever lies
behind Morris' misguided statements hawked as facts, it made me realize that this year's
'Presidential Politics' is a liars game.
And
historically it was the candidate who did the 'lying.'
Presently, in
this year's tight race EVERYONE is lying, and to make it worse, they're getting paid for
it!
I think I'll
write a letter to Fox News about it.
Yep, that's
what I'm going to do...just as soon as I get over the flu.
Or next week
sometime, maybe, even.
In the
meantime, would anyone out there be willing to write a letter to Bill O'Reilly and Fox
News for me?
Tell'em I said:
SHUT UP!
###
Come on Over Georgie, Whole
Lotta LYING Going On!
BY JUDITH HANEY, EDITOR, USNewsLink, Saturday, Nov. 4, 2000
Babara Bush, and George W.,
lied to the nation about George W.'s drinking problem.
In an interview in 1999 with
The Washington Post, Barbara Bush said the family had no inkling of a drinking problem.
"Now we did not know that he had an
alcohol problem and we saw him a lot," Barbara Bush said.
"That is not to say that we never maybe
saw him when he'd had a little bit too much to drink," she continued.
George W., describes his arrest in 1976 as a
"youthful indiscretion" in spite of the fact that he was 30 years old when it
occurred.
By Bush's own admission, he continued to
drink heavily for the next 10 years, until he turned 40.
Further, in 1998, Bush lied to Wayne Slater,
reporter for the Dallas Morning News, when he denied having ever been arrested after 1968.
What Barbara Bush and George W. Bush have
inflicted upon the nation by lying is reprehensible.
And given Bush's propensity for denial,
lying, and laughing off his drinking problem, it is likely that further evidence will
surface pointing to other drunken "indiscretions."
When the 'indiscretions' surface, and they
will, what will be Bush's response?
Will he admit it?
Will he deny it?
Will he attempt to laugh it off?
What ploy will Bush use to ward off the
truth about the nature, extent, and problems associated with his alcoholism?
Bush continues to question "why"
his alcoholism is relevant in the closing days of the election.
That Bush would openly 'question' why
implies the level of his denial about his problem.
On balance, Bush is unfit to be President of
the United States, specifically for his having lied about his alcohol problems, and his
denial of it's relevancy.
###
DON'T GIMME NO
JIVE, AND KEEP YO' VOTE TO YO'SEF!
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2000
Hey Bushies! Please don't come around proselytizing me today about the
virtues of George W. Bush!
Why you ask?
To begin with,
the Bushies have a lot in common with reformed alcoholics and reformed smokers - they
think they can change the world by repeating the same old stale, empty, meaningless,
message absent any thoughtful reasoning.
But alas. What
is their 'message' about candidate Bush?
Their message appears
to be, a vote for Bush (or Nader) would be 'better' than a vote for the Clinton
Administration.
However, their
message does NOT appear to be founded upon any firm economic principles, any firm social
beliefs, or any firm political persuasions.
The Bushies
remind me of the Corleone family. When the Don of the 'family' tells them to do a 'job,'
they don't ask 'why,' they just mindlessly do it.
Today, voters
who support Bush are 'doing it,' no questions asked. They're simply carrying out the order
to do a 'job' on Al Gore.
Therefore, I
ask this question: Why are they voting for Bush?
I'll bet they can't
answer that question.
I'll bet they won't
answer that question.
Why? Because
there is NO GOOD ANSWER, that's why!
So, please
don't come proselytizing me today about the virtues of George W. Bush!
Because I
KNOW there is no good reason why I should vote for Bush!
And there are
PLENTY of GOOD REASONS why I WILL vote for AL GORE.
### |
|
They're Only Saying It To Bore Us
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink,
October 18, 2000
Have you ever gone hunting for intelligent life in the universe and wound
up reading one of those online message boards such as FreeRepublic.com or Lucianne.com?
Actually, I admit I haunt those boards.
Why you ask?
I suppose it's because I find the reading stimulating, even as I disagree
with the posts.
Which leads me to my thesis.
For the most part, the right wing message boards are monothematic, i.e.,
they have one speed (hate and intolerance) and one agenda (destroy Clinton and Gore).
But one can learn something from anyone given enough exposure.
As a writer, the right wing message boards provide rare insight into hate
group dynamics, i.e., the piling on, us against them, psyche.
And, if you look beneath the surface of these groups, you find
individuals who are powerless and angry. And when they form online bonds with other like
minded people, a hate group evolves from the ashes of their misbegotten lives.
However, the Internet is fertile soil for these disenfranchised people,
and they are here to stay.
The problem I have with them is, they never say anything different.
You can tune in anytime, day or night, and see the same people saying the
same thing.
And they're boring. Really, truly, BORING!
The single aspect of these boards which save them from being a complete
waste of time is the sense of humor of some of the participants.
SOMETIMES, someone will hit a home run in the humor department. And when
this happens, it fuels my desire to return to the same old boring crowd, wreaking the same
old boring havoc, reciting the same old political theme of intolerance.
###
What is a
woman worth?
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Sunday, October 1, 2000
QUESTION?
Recently 'the
billionaire and the beauty' saga has captured the attention of Americans.
Since he cut
her out of his will and died shortly thereafter, the distribution of the billionaire's
estate has fallen to a court of law to decide.
And the male
dominated American press has found this pathetic matter newsworthy, probably because it
gives them a platform to crack off color jokes about this particular beauty's God given
'assets.'
Without delving
into the story's details, the essence of the story is: how much, in terms of dollars, was
this beauty worth to this billionaire in lieu of their brief, twenty-four month, marriage?
ANSWER:
If you hear men
discuss this case, they discuss 'performance;' 'what did she do to 'earn' the money'?
If you hear
women discuss this case, they talk in terms of, love; 'what did this woman mean to this
man and what did he mean to her?
And if you
think about it, this question is discussed and analyzed in most marriages, sometimes on a
daily basis.
What are we
worth to the people we marry?
I believe I was
worth a lot to my former husband in terms of what I did for him during our time together.
And he will say
that I spent all of our money during our marriage and that I owe him all of the money
back.
Men and women
see these matters so differently that I herein endorse the concept of requiring couples to
agree to a distribution of assets prior to getting married.
States have
enacted laws that guide courts in distributing marital assets in the event of divorce and
death.
However, these
laws do not keep these cases out of court.
After our
divorce, my ex drug me through court after court in an effort to obtain money from me,
causing one judge to write in her opinion that he appeared to be mentally ill and
obsessed.
Based on my
life experiences, American women aren't worth much to men. If you doubt the veracity of
this statement, just ask a man what his wife is worth to him.
And, women will
respond differently to this question.
A woman will
always place a higher value on her husband than he does on her. Also, a woman places a
higher value on her husband than she does on herself. On this subject, married couples
often agree.
I am empathetic
to the case of the beauty who married the billionaire. She had value to him although he
chose not to leave her any money after his death.
The fact that a
billionaire would leave all of his money to one son and cut out the other and also cut out
his wife is a commentary on our society.
Simply put, men
who have power wield it without regard for the harm they cause.
In the end,
women on the receiving end of financial insults such as these are left with a hollow
feeling and wondering where 'they' went wrong.
And society
laughs and jokes about these age old dilemmas.
Ultimately,
what a woman is worth is decided when she signs a prenuptial agreement.
A woman's worth
is not decided by how many loads of his laundry she does, or how many meals she cooks for
him, or how often she places his needs above her own.
Gore's 'Mind'
Triumphed Over Bush's 'Chatter'
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink,
October 18, 2000
A group of
undecided voter's submitted well informed questions to Vice President Al Gore-D, and Texas
Governor George W. Bush-R, Tuesday during the third and final presidential debate.
The questions were posed in
the following order:
HMO's?
Prescription
Drugs?
National Health
Care?
Education?
Foreign Policy?
Military
Deployment & Readiness?
Gun Control?
Family Farms?
Morality?
Voter Apathy?
Affirmative
Action?
Taxes?
Capital
Punishment?
Keeping
Campaign Promises?
As the men addressed each
question, they verbally sparred, disagreeing with one another's solutions, programs,
and policies.
Throughout the debate, both
candidates attempted to undermine one another's authority, knowledge, honesty, integrity,
and ability to lead.
Bush hurled empty
accusations at Gore's health care proposals, and failed to offer substantive proof in
support of his misleading characterizations and statements.
However, in the final
analysis, Vice President Al Gore proffered competent, well informed, solutions to the
nation's problems
And Governor George Bush,
'liberally' practiced rhetoric and sarcasm and failed to provide a clear agenda which
addresses a variety of voter concerns.
The third and final
presidential debate left no doubt whatsoever in the minds of objective, undecided,
onlookers that Al Gore is, hands down, a voter's best choice to become leader of the free
world.
###
Women Are Allowing A Couple of Wusses
to Control Nations Agenda
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Thursday, October 12, 2000
During the
first hour of the second Presidential debate Wednesday, the two candidates and the
moderator failed to cite one issue of specific importance to America's women.
The two
candidates were inept when asked to express their concerns about racial profiling, civil
rights, education, affirmative action, and other sociological issues of concern to women.
Instead of
discussing women's issues, the two candidates spent most of their allotted time discussing
use of America's military to support foreign policy and gun control.
Further, they
digressed when discussing hate crimes, and appeared substantially ill informed about the
federal government's role in deterring crime.
Gore expressed
support for civic unions between gays, however, Bush specifically rejected 'marriage'
between gays.
Bush
specifically rejected granting protected status to gays.
On the subject
of gun control, Gore advocated restoring the three day waiting period. He further stated
his support for enforcing existing gun control laws.
Gore supports
licensing by states for new handguns.
Gore does not
support gun registration.
Bush supports
"character education classes" for school age children.
Bush advocates
"teaching children right from wrong."
On the subject
of health care, Bush advocated "medical savings accounts."
Gore stated
that affordable health care is one of his top priorities. And he pointed out that the
state of Texas has failed to provide health care to dependent children under Bush's
administration.
When pressed to
offer an explanation as to the reason Texas was dead last in providing health care to
needy children in spite of having a surplus in tax revenue, Bush failed to offer an
explanation, preferring instead to deflect, defend, and shift the subject.
Mr. Bush? Can
We Hear A Little Less Talk and See A Lot More Action?
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Thursday, October 5, 2000
Did the
presidential debate Tuesday and post debate rehash Wednesday by the two presidential
candidates serve the interests of voters?
During
Tuesday's debate, did voters learn anything new, different or exciting about the issues or
the candidates?
Well, speaking
for myself, I certainly learned something.
What I learned
was that Al Gore would focus on four major issues if he is elected president.
The first issue
driven home by the Vice President on Tuesday night was his intent to balance the budget.
The second
issue Gore emphasized was his intent to pay down the national debt.
The third issue
he focused upon was his intent to preserve social security by putting it in a lockbox.
The fourth
issue Gore committed to was to reduce taxes for middle class Americans.
And, in
thinking about George W. Bush's statements during Tuesday's debate, I STILL do not know
what his agenda is.
What is Mr.
Bush's agenda?
Whatever Bush's
agenda is, he doesn't appear able to state it in concise language.
And I say that
is NOT good enough.
It is not good
enough for Bush to take millions upon millions of dollars from contributors and then fail
to state a concise agenda to potential voters during the first presidential debate.
To say his
performance in this regard fell short is an understatement.
It's ludicrous
for Bush to think that his failure to state an agenda will get him elected.
Frankly, I
think it takes a bit of gaul to get up in front of millions of people and perform so
miserably.
OK, so George
W. has style. Fine.
Bush has NO
SUBSTANCE.
And if Mr.
No-Substance Bush can't sell himself or produce an agenda now, there is no reason for
voters to think that he will produce one if he were elected president.
The First
Presidential Debate
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Wednesday, October 4, 2000
Al Gore and
George Bush met in Boston, MA, Tuesday for the first of three presidential debates.
From the
outset, Gore dominated the debate by hammering his agenda of balancing the budget, paying
down the national debt, putting Medicare and social security in a lock box and preserving
it, and cutting taxes for middle class Americans.
Bush appeared
nervous when he first took the podium and spent much of his time reacting to Gore instead
of identifying his own agenda if elected President.
In the only
area where he appeared in command of the subject matter, Bush stated his desire to
enhance domestic oil production, while claiming to "know something about this
subject."
On abortion,
Bush stated that "abortion oughta be more rare in America."
Gore supported
the use of RU-486 for abortion while stating that he would "sign a law banning
partial birth abortions."
Bush stated
that he would order a review of RU-486 if he were elected.
Gore stated
that he believes in a right of privacy and that he would appoint judges to the Supreme
Court who would "very likely uphold Roe v. Wade."
Bush stated
that Gore "would appoint liberal activists judges who would subvert the
legislature."
Bush skated
around the issue and did not answer the question as to the type of judges he would appoint
to the Supreme Court if he were elected President.
Bush stated
that the morale in "today's military is very low". He further stated that
"the United States military is not well equipped."
Gore stated
that "today's military is the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the
world."
Gore's demeanor
throughout the debate was calm, assured, knowledgeable and competent.
Bush's demeanor
was sometimes defensive, breathy, shallow and he often groped for the right words.
Bush did not
appear to have a strong grasp of some of the issues and he did not project a strong will
to win.
Throughout the
debate Bush mouthed his well rehearsed words, jabs and one liners, but he lacked
conviction and purpose in his statements.
And in the end,
Bush resorted to attacking Gore's character when his lack of experience and failure to
grasp basic concepts and facts rendered him the underdog.
Matt 'Dud'ge
Can't Write His Way Out of a Paperback!
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink,
Wednesday, September 27, 2000
"American
reporters consider me beneath them," he whines.
However, Matt
Drudge never tells readers why 'reporters' turn their literary noses up at him in his
'longer than life' hallucinogenic egostained book due out next week.
In the opinion
of this reporter, one reason Drudge has never 'made it' as a reporter is that he doesn't
know how to finish a lucid thought.
In his internet
site, the Drudge Report, he leaves readers hanging, waiting for the facts to be presented
in support of his outrageous and irresponsible headlines.
But, alas, the
'facts' never, but never materialize.
Drudge's idea
of presenting the 'facts' is to copy and paste what other reputable news organizations
post on the internet, meanwhile adding his own skewed spin on issues ala the
"National Enquirer."
By the time
Drudge finishes misleading his readers by posting a legitimate story under a false
and misleading headline, a reader is completely confused and misled as to the relevance of
the headline vis a vis the story it supports.
In spite of
these amateurish shenanigans, Drudge has hung on long enough to get a book deal. Over the
years, he has managed to cultivate a few New York City tabloid types who would sign a
billy goat if it would make'em a buck.
He reminds me
of Andy Warhol's early days in New York City when it was chic for otherwise bored New
Yorkers to be photographed with or by Andy.
However, Drudge
Chic has long since past.
And, although I
admit that I was an early supporter of Drudge, I have since changed my mind about him.
He's a fake
wanna-be looking for a place to displace his fatherless boyish aggression.
He reminds me
of every teenage boy I have known who lost their father at an early age. These boys will
do and say ANYTHING to get noticed.
That's EXACTLY
what Drudge has pulled off in this silly book of his.
He's gotten
noticed, again, but when will this immature crappola end?
Are there any
self respecting literary critics out there with the guts to tell the truth about this
man-boy?
If so, speak
now or forever hold your laughter!
###
Laura Bush's Body Language
Told The Truth About George's Drinking
BY JUDITH HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Friday, Nov. 3, 2000
Last night as
Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, told voters via an impromptu press conference that
he had "not had a drink since his 40th birthday," his wife, who was watching him
attentively, turned her head and looked in another direction.
Mrs. Bush's body language told
the whole story. She had a visceral, unconscious, negative, reaction to George's
statement.
At one point during Bush's
performance, he looked and acted like an alcoholic.
He half smiled out of the right
side of his face.
His half laughing, partly
humorous, demeanor was that of a school boy who had been caught breaking the rules then
grinning about it hoping to charm his accusers.
At another point Bush grinned
about having been arrested while driving drunk with tennis ace John Newcomb in the car
with him. Following the Newcomb statement, Bush appeared to be waiting on a laugh from his
audience, the national press.
Frankly, I am not shocked that
Bush has an arrest record for drunk driving. Because a man who, admittedly, drank as much
as he did for as long as he did would 'probably' have a prior arrest.
And I find myself wondering if
Bush has more arrests that have been expunged or otherwise covered up. During Bush's press
conference Thursday night no one asked him if he had other arrests.
What shocks me about this
matter is that he ran for President at all.
I am further appalled that the
elder Bush would be dumb enough to pass his oldest son off as an acceptable candidate. The
elder Bush is as unrealistic as George is.
And the most shocking thing of
all is that Bush would build his shallow campaign around discrediting Al Gore by
constantly calling him a liar.
The fact that Bush has spent millions
of dollars calling Al Gore a liar, knowing all along it was he who was
'lying' to the nation about his past, makes my skin crawl.
Does the United States need a man
leading our country who has a history of alcoholism and DUI and who fails to disclose it
on his job application? The answer is a resounding NO!
Does the country need a President who
questions the "timing" of the DUI story, and who fails to
recognize that he should have revealed the truth months ago? NO!
No, no, no. Not today, not
tomorrow, not anytime!
###
FUNERAL FOR BUSH'S DUI ARREST POSTPONED!
BY JUDITH
HANEY, EDITOR
USNewsLink, Sunday, Nov. 5, 2000
Do not think for one minute that USNewsLink
is 'falling in' alongside of some high profile newspapers today by prematurely burying the
story of George W. Bush's DUI arrest. NOPE ! NADA!
The first thing
I did this morning was check on the Washington Post and NY Times to see how they 'handled'
the Bush arrest.
They said grace
over it and BURIED IT!
But not this
writer. I'm not burying it.
Why you ask?
Because the
story is relevant. In fact, it is more relevant than any other issue that's facing
American voters today.
For months of
the campaign Bush has 'passively' lied to reporters about his alcoholism and his arrest
record via his refusal to come clean about it.
And, Bush has
secured the assistance of his family in furthering and perpetuating the lies.
Barbara Bush
has lied to the American people by stating that neither she nor her husband had been aware
that George W. had a drinking problem.
Balderdash!!
Further, Bush
has obtained the assistance of his campaign staff to hide his drinking problems and his
arrest record.
And what makes
me the sickest about this sham of Bush's is that he claims the reason he hid his arrest
was to protect his two daughters!
Therefore, not
only is Bush a liar, he will stoop to any level to shore up his lies and his faulty
reasoning and rationale.
Bush is unfit
to be President of the United States because:
1. For MONTHS Bush hid his arrest record from the
American people; and,
2. Bush LIED to a respected member of the press corp,
i.e., Wayne Slater, Dallas Morning News, about it.
###
Inferior Candidate, Inferior System
BY JUDITH HANEY, EDITOR, USNewsLink, Sunday, November 12, 2000
George
W. Bush, an inferior candidate in all ways that count when compared to his
opponent Vice President Al Gore, was elected President in Florida by just 327 votes
- MAYBE.
Why was 'Bush the inferior'
elected you ask?
Simple. Voters were
dissatisfied with the Clinton Administration scandals.
However,
scandal goes with 'men' who run for President like syrup on pancakes. It's the nature of
beast.
Sometimes I wonder if
Presidential candidates don't rationalize their scandalous acts by saying to themselves:
"I
don't care what the populous thinks, believes, or values; I can afford to lose a few votes
because the 'winner take all' electoral college is all that matters."
And in the Bush-Gore race,
scandal plagued both candidates.
In fact, the scandals hitting
the wires during the campaign would have been enough to destroy both men's candidacy in
bygone years.
But this year, both men survived the
scrutiny of the press and 'Bush the Inferior' won.
As a woman, I
am angry about the outcome of this election.
I am angry that 'Bush the
Inferior' won and that women in America will have to worry about and fear the
official acts of this lying, deceiving, (possibly) reformed alcoholic and (confirmed)
drunk driver for the next four years.
And, I am angry that the country
elected 'Bush the Inferior' and his sidekick, 'Dick the Snore,'
to our two highest offices, both of whom have drunk driving convictions.
I especially hate the fact that 'Bush
the Inferior's' conviction INEXCUSABLY occurred when he was a
mature adult.
And I am angry about the fact that 'Bush
the Inferior' sought to cover-up his arrest and conviction by using his press
spokesman, Karen Hughes, and his mother, Barbara Bush, to run interference for him at the
eleventh hour of his inept campaign.
And I am especially repulsed by
the fact that these two women undertook these despicably dishonest acts on behalf of their
man-boy.
And let us not forget 'Bush the
Inferior's' sleazy excuse for not telling the electorate about his drunk driving,
i.e., "I didn't want to set a bad example for my two daughters by
disclosing my drunk driving conviction".
Ugh!!! Yuck!!! How slimy and
low can a candidate get to use his two daughters as excuses for lying to the nation?
This all goes to show what
depths 'Bush the Inferior,' and his gang of liars, will stoop to get elected President.
Another thing I especially
dread is being subjected to Dick Cheney's monotone voice for the next four loooo-oooong
years.
When Cheney was Secretary of
Defense in the Bush Administration I couldn't stand listening to the bore during his
frequent appearances on Sunday news shows. It grated on me like a fingernail on a
blackboard to watch his expressionless face simultaneously with listening to his dull,
monotone, droll.
To sum it up, an inferior
candidate was elected by an inferior system. And the nation is 'presently' stuck with
both.
Of course, stay tuned ... this
could change at any moment.
The situation with the recount
of the votes reminds me of when Nixon resigned.
No one knew exactly when the
change of power took place, but sometime during the day it happened.
I 'still' believe the change of
power shifted from Nixon to Ford precisely at the moment when Nixon lifted off from the
White House lawn and gave his final salute, i.e., the "international sign" to
the national press corp.
In the final analysis, three
things have become extremely important to me as United States citizen:
1. I want the country 'soberly'
to reform it's system of electing Presidents by abolishing the electoral college.
2. I want 'Bush the Inferior'
to stay 'sober' and continue his AA meetings and promise not to make his mommy lie for him
in the future.
3. I want 'Dick the Snore'
to stay 'sober' and promise never to drive drunk again. I also want Snore
to take lessons in elocution and delivery of the English language.
###
|
