Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

KN4M Turkey Day 2006

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com The Konformist Newswire will likely take a
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 23, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      The Konformist Newswire will likely take a break until 2007. Enjoy
      yourselves!!!

      MichaelMoore.com
      Mike's Letter
      http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=201

      Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
      A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

      To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

      I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last
      week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a
      very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican
      Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left
      unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

      Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for
      you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our
      Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a
      list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our
      fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our
      newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and
      for you.

      Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

      Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

      I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

      1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will
      never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with
      us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

      2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us
      consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry
      is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful
      gift.

      3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal
      whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we
      will balance it for you.

      4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will
      bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We
      promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake
      or a lie.

      5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal
      health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they
      fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor,
      regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research
      delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your
      loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and
      your family, too.

      6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we
      clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let
      you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

      7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we
      will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing
      him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

      8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What
      you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue
      to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you
      were conceived.

      9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic
      weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't
      much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We
      will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these
      weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect
      ours.

      10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your
      employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what
      men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

      11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put
      those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to
      promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the
      poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is
      easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
      man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of
      the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let
      people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America,
      he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and
      fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus
      setting a good example for the rest of the world.

      12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are
      bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader
      who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we
      will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail
      to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in
      power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way
      when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as
      the loyal opposition.

      I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too.
      You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this
      together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of
      service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if
      we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow
      Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

      Signed,

      Michael Moore
      mmflint@...
      (Click here to sign the pledge)
      www.michaelmoore.com

      P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

      *****

      Gallup: Obama Now Posing Threat to Hillary in 2008 -- Giuliani Leads
      McCain on GOP Side
      By E&P Staff
      Published: November 15, 2006

      NEW YORK After a whirlwind political campaign and press tour riding
      a bestselling book, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois now trails Sen.
      Hillary Clinton by only 12% among Democratic voters (and Democratic-
      leaning independents) as their choice for president in 2008, in a
      new Gallup poll.

      On the GOP side, Sen. John McCain surprisingly trails former New
      York Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 2%.

      The poll was conducted Nov. 9-12.

      Clinton leads with 31%, and Obama holds 19%. Former Sen. John
      Edwards comes in third, with 10%, followed by former Vice President
      Al Gore (9%) and Sen. John Kerry (7%). Sen. Joseph Biden draws 4%,
      Gen. Wesley Clark 3% and Sen. Evan Bayh and Gov. Bill Richardson
      just 2% at this point.

      Giuliani tops McCain 28% to 26%, with Condoleezza Rice at 13%. Newt
      Gingrich has 7% and Gov. Mitt Romney 5%.

      Gallup makes this interesting observation: "None of the four current
      front-runners across both parties appears to be resonating with a
      particular political wing of their party, at least at this point.
      Giuliani and McCain are about tied among conservative Republicans as
      well as among moderate/liberal Republicans. Similarly, there is
      relatively little difference in support for Clinton versus Obama
      between self-described conservative Democrats and moderate/liberal
      Democrats."

      Clinton's edge over Obama among women is somewhat greater than the
      overall tally: it's 38% to 18%. But she also leads among men, 23% to
      20%.

      *****

      Slain ex-Cardinal added to Ring of Honor
      November 12, 2006

      GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) -- Pat Tillman, who left the Arizona Cardinals
      to join the Army Rangers and died in Afghanistan in 2004, was added
      to the team's "Ring of Honor" in a halftime ceremony Sunday.

      The crowd stood and cheered when his name was unfurled overlooking
      the 50-yard line in the Cardinals' new University of Phoenix
      Stadium.

      Before the game, the Cardinals dedicated an area outside the stadium
      known as "Pat Tillman Freedom Plaza." It includes a 500-pound, 8-
      foot tall bronze statue of Tillman.

      Behind the sculpture is a 42-foot-long wall, symbolic of Tillman's
      number at Arizona State. There are 40 oak trees west of the
      memorial, symbolizing the No. 40 he wore with the Cardinals.

      Tillman started at safety for three seasons for Arizona and set a
      franchise record with 200 tackles in 2000. He turned down contract
      offers in 2002 to become an Army Ranger. He was killed by friendly
      fire while on duty in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004.


      *****

      49ERS ON THE MOVE?
      Santa Clara fans eagerly await storied team
      They want to keep San Francisco in the Niners' name
      - John Coté, Steve Rubenstein, Chronicle Staff Writers
      Friday, November 10, 2006

      Like linebackers scrambling for a fumble, football fans in Santa
      Clara can't wait to get their hands on the San Francisco 49ers.

      Just about everyone in the city's 19.3 square miles thinks the
      team's announced desire to move in is a great idea.

      "The fan base is here,'' said Keith Altknecht, 53, who was having
      lunch at a taco stand not far from where the 49ers hope to build a
      new stadium. "There's no reason for us to have to drive all the way
      up there to see a game when we can have it down here. That may sound
      a little selfish ... but the money is down here.''

      Altknecht said it's fine with him if the team wants to continue to
      call itself the San Francisco 49ers while playing 40 miles south of
      San Francisco.

      "We're all connected. We're still the San Francisco Bay Area,
      correct? I don't want to change the name.''

      Jene Diaz, 27, said it would be nice not to have to drive so far to
      see her team play. And she thinks it's OK to keep San Francisco in
      the team's name.

      "They've always been the San Francisco 49ers -- they're just
      leaving,'' she said.

      Matt Becker, 29, said calling the team the Santa Clara 49ers would
      sound weird.

      "They have to keep the name,'' Becker said. "Joe Montana didn't win
      Super Bowls for the Santa Clara 49ers.''

      Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan said the city of 102,000 wasn't the
      kind of place that would insist on having its name as part of the
      team's identity.

      "It's always got to be the San Francisco 49ers,'' she said. "The
      whole San Francisco Bay Area has always identified with San
      Francisco. It's the center of gravity in the region.''

      "I've been a 49ers fan since John Brodie played at Kezar.''

      And Vice Mayor Kevin Moore, who said he once snuck into the 49ers'
      locker room as a youngster, said it was nice that the team wants to
      come south.

      "I always thought I was going to buy a house at Candlestick,'' he
      said. "Now it looks like I might not have to.''

      Thank Ngo, an 18-year-old premed student, said she was worried that
      roads would get more crowded on game days.

      "There's really bad traffic already -- like Highway 101 can get any
      worse,'' she said.

      E-mail the writers at jcote@... and
      srubenstein@....

      Page B - 5

      *****

      The A's may know the way to San Jose
      By Paul T. Rosynsky and Chris DeBenedetti, Staff Writers
      Inside Bay Area
      11/06/2006

      OAKLAND - The Oakland A's could soon be San Jose A's, as sources
      confirmed today that the team's owner is expected to have a press
      conference with Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig next
      week to announce a move to Fremont.
      A source close to the Fremont negotiations said Monday that Selig
      will visit the area next Tuesday for a press conference with A's
      owner Lewis Wolff and executives at Cisco Systems Inc., a company
      that owns a 143-acre plot of land targeted for a new stadium.

      The source said that press conference could take place at Cisco
      Systems headquarters in San Jose.

      In addition, a longtime South Bay booster said Wolff told him three
      weeks ago that a deal to buy the Cisco land was just about complete.

      ``He was in my office here about three weeks ago and told me it was
      pretty much a done deal,'' said Larry Stone, the Santa Clara County
      Assessor and member of Baseball San Jose. ``He was very very
      confident that the deal could be done with Cisco.''

      Wolff would not comment on the press conference or relocation plans
      Monday. Reached on his cell phone Monday morning Wolff said he was
      too busy to talk and referred questions to team officials.

      Asked if he is moving to Fremont, Wolff said, ``I gotta go.''

      As news of the press conference spread Monday questions surrounding
      the team's future home evolved into questions about its possible
      name.

      Although Wolff is forbidden from building a ballpark in Santa Clara
      County because of Major League Baseball's territorial rights rules,
      those rules do not prevent him from taking the name San Jose or
      Silicon Valley.

      ``There are no rules on the books (regarding names),'' said Richard
      Levin, spokesman for Major League Baseball. ``It is something the
      commissioner would have to deal with.''

      Wolff has said in the past that he needs to attract more companies
      to invest in the team through the purchase of luxury boxes and in-
      stadium advertising. Having a name San Jose or Silicon Valley could
      accomplish that goal, some said.

      ``The reason he is moving down here is to get closer to where the
      financial capacity is,'' Stone said. ``Look, they are going to be 25
      miles from Oakland and 4 miles from San Jose.''

      Oakland officials said they have no information about a potential
      move. But Fremont city officials said Wolff has already scheduled
      meetings with every city council member. Those meetings will take
      place Wednesday.

      Wolff's desire to move the team to Fremont began the day Wolff was
      hired by former team owners Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman as vice
      president for venue development.

      Although Wolff pledged to seek sites in Oakland first, the idea of
      having a ballpark in Fremont never ceded.

      Its proximity to San Jose and open tracks of land always kept it a
      contender as a future Athletics home.

      The speculation came closer to reality in March after Wolff declared
      that Oakland did not have the time or space to build a new ballpark.

      It reached a fever pitch this summer after it was revealed that
      Wolff had bought at least 10 acres of land in Fremont next door to a
      143-acre site he had targeted as a perfect location for a new
      ballpark.

      Wolff has always wanted a large swathe of land for his new ballpark.
      His idea was to build a ``baseball village'' around the stadium to
      help pay for its construction. Such a village would include housing,
      retail stores and the baseball stadium.

      *****

      K-Fed shops sex tape of er, happier, times
      By Herald wire services
      Monday, November 13, 2006

      Britney Spears is in the midst of severing her marriage and bankroll
      ties to estranged hubby Kevin Federline, but the master moocher is
      still plotting ways to make money off the pop star's sexy image.

      K-Fed has been touting a four-hour sex tape of the couple during
      happier times and has already been offered $26 million - half of
      what Spears' fortune is estimated to be worth - reports News of the
      World.

      "At the time, the two of them were in the honeymoon stages of
      the relationship and couldn't keep their hands off each other," a
      Federline friend told the tabloid about the X-rated vid. "Britney
      didn't think twice about making the video at the time. She
      mistakenly believed that their love would last."

      Spears has allegedly called her lawyers to try to stop Federline
      from distributing the raunchy footage, but a source said because
      it's legally K-Fed's property, he owns the tape's copyright.

      The 28-year-old wannabe rapper is reportedly so furious with his
      estranged ex-wife for kicking him to the curb, he'll do anything to
      hurt her.

      News of the World also dropped the bomb that the newly svelte
      songstress filed for divorce last week after busting the
      professional inseminator with another woman.

      Spears demanded the keys to the hotel room where the father of
      her two sons, Sean Preston, 1, and Jayden James, two months, was
      staying in the Big Apple after he stood her up for dinner.

      "She raced up to his room and found another girl there," said
      Someone Who Knows. "Just the fact she was in there was enough to
      confirm months of suspicions, rumors and accusations about him
      playing away. Britney had seen all she had to and decided their
      marriage was over on the spot."

      Federline wasn't privy to the end of their relationship until he
      received a text message from his scorned wife a few days later,
      alerting him about the freshly filed divorce papers.

      But, of course, none of this news comes as a surprise to Spears'
      first husband-for-a-second, Jason Alexander.

      "Kevin hasn't really held up his end of the deal, just like he
      didn't with his first relationship with Shar (Jackson)," Alexander
      told Inside Edition. "Now he's got four kids out there."

      As for Federline's countersuit seeking custody of his two sons
      with Spears, Alexander doesn't think he has a chance.

      "He won't get the kids," he said. "He can't take care of his
      first two."

      And as for Spears, Alexander says she should "give me a
      call . . . I still love her."

      *****

      The War Loses, Voters Win
      Rahm's Losers
      By John V. Walsh
      CounterPunch.org
      11-14-6

      Now that the Democrats have won the House overwhelmingly, the media
      is falling all over itself to proclaim Rahm Emanuel, head of the
      Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and dearest friend of
      Israel, a boy genius. Even that congenital liar and close friend of
      Ariel Sharon, the ever tendentious NYT neocon William Safire, came
      out of retirement to hail Rahm as the Karl Rove of the Dems and to
      spin the election in various ways designed to keep Emanuel's
      influence alive.

      But is Rahm a boy genius or did the Dem establishments succeed
      despite him and in fact despite itself? After all, the Dem
      establishment, partisans of oil, empire and Israel, chose Rahm to
      lead them. Let's do the numbers to see how Rahm and his employers
      really did.

      On these electronic pages during the electoral season we have
      tracked the machinations and motives of Rahm Emanuel (1,2). Long ago
      Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might
      win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm,
      save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two
      cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the
      primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in
      Illinois's 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of
      Tammy ("Stay the course") Duckworth who lost in the general
      election. In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar
      Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who
      went on to win in the general election.

      Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13
      were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And
      remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that
      Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy
      Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed
      in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have
      picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's
      choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win
      the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the
      campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9
      new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts
      were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great
      majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on
      the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates
      were not antiwar.

      So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The
      Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that
      they had found a new host in the Dem party but the voters now
      perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will
      be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the
      wings for 2008Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else
      Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic
      victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a
      position of influence in the Dem party? A good question.

      A footnote to all this is the skullduggery behind the scenes in the
      campaign of one of Rahm's losers, Diane Farrell, who lost to
      Christopher Shays in CT. Farrell successfully passed herself off as
      antiwar in some quarters, getting the last minute endorsement of
      Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation. But here is Farrell's "plan"
      for Iraq according to her web site: "Have Congress step up to its
      proper oversight role and get the administration to articulate and
      implement a transition plan in which the U.S. will reduce its role
      and begin to bring troops home. Set achievement benchmarks, rather
      than dates, for implementing such a pullback." Farrell does not
      support the Murtha or McGovern bills; she even rejects "timetables,"
      and puts the onus of getting out of Iraq on "the administration" as
      opposed to Congressional action, namely her had she won. Why would
      The Nation support such a candidate? Was it simply incompetence, not
      doing one's homework?

      At the same time backers of Farrell, calling themselves Greens,
      managed to get the hard working and principled Green candidate in
      her district to withdraw on the basis of "private" and still secret
      assurances that Farrell would be antiwar in the end. Maybe we will
      now find out the nature of those assurances. One suspects that if
      Farrell had adopted a strong antiwar position and challenged her
      Green opponent that way, rather than conniving to force him out, she
      might have won the race. But then of course she would have lost
      Rahm's lucre.

      John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@....

      He welcomes more information on the machinations of Schumer or of
      Rahm, the loser.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.