Airing Out America

What a surprise I received yesterday when I tuned my radio to KLSD/AM 1360. I was expecting to hear Randi Rhodes, but instead I heard some dumb jock discussing the future of the San Diego Chargers. It seems that Air America, the only progressive radio station we had in San Diego was replaced by Clear Channel with Sports Radio, as though we needed another sports station. Now we have three.

The voice of dissent has been stilled in the San Diego area. We have one Republican-oriented newspaper. When it comes to the media, we are a mono town. Now our choice of talk radio is Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and a whole host of local personalities who bring their conservative views to the listeners. Variety is the lifeblood of culture. Now that our cultural options have gotten smaller, our life has gotten smaller, too. One of the greatest joys of radio used to be the variety of offerings one got just by scanning the dial.

Air America was not cancelled because of a lack of listeners. Tens of thousands of people in this area were hungry for a progressive news source, and recently a large crowd met to oppose Clear Channel removing their only local source of progressive news. Salon.com has this to say about Clear Channel:

“Radio companies used to be severely constrained from owning what from the government's perspective was too many stations. Companies could own only two in any one market and no more than 28 nationwide. Government policy enforced the notion that radio was broadcast on the public airwaves and had an accompanying public trust. Local stations were supposed to be assets to local communities. The ownership rules were designed to keep ownership as diverse as possible and keep the stations' focus as local as possible.

"All that changed in the 1990s. Five years ago, President Clinton, pressured by a GOP-controlled Congress, signed into law the Telecommunications Act, which essentially did away with ownership restrictions on radio. Now, just a handful of companies control radio in the 100 largest American markets. Of these, Clear Channel rules the horizon with 1,200 stations, which generate more than $3 billion annually in revenues.”

Sometimes one wonders if there isn’t a conspiracy to keep liberal views out of our area. When Michael Moore’s “Sicko” came to town, it was available at only two theaters, which required people in the outlying areas to drive up to 35 miles or more round-trip to see it. It also is worth noting that the movie was not shown at second-run theaters, as so many other films are. I got on the web and found that some people in other areas of the nation were also complaining about the movie not being shown in convenient locations. Now that the movie is available on DVD, I will be sure to rent it.

Could it be that some of those same corporations that own movie theaters also have a great financial stake in the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

Putting a New Face On It

There is an old saying that one can’t tell a book by its cover. Apparently, there are a great number of individuals, especially young people, who don’t like the “cover” they have been given and seek to change it by means of plastic surgery to the face and other parts of the body. One can think of understandable reasons why some individuals are willing to endure the painful and risky reconstructive surgery on the face: part of the face blown away in warfare; birth defects; cancer; a shot gun wound or a car accident where the jaw, the tongue, the muscle around the jaw, and the lips are gone; an attack by an animal that results in part of the face being ripped way.

Current reconstructive surgery involves taking bone and skin from another part of a patient's body and molding them to look like the features they must replace. We are told that some plastic surgeons have already succeeded in making face transplants with cadavers donated for medical research and will soon begin interviewing a shortlist of patients to determine who, if anyone, will be first up for this procedure. The chance it will work is around 50% and experts have expressed safety and ethical concerns about the procedure. The recipient would have to take powerful anti-rejection drugs for life.

Now we have what is known as celebrity plastic surgery in which an individual with features similar to those of a celebrity can have those features altered to look more or less like the celebrity of their choice.

In 2004, a new MTV show "I Want a Famous Face" aired a half-hour episode each week with the following introduction: “How far would you go to look like a celebrity? Nose job here? Nip & tuck there? The people you are about to meet went that far and beyond. They have endured painful and sometimes risky reconstructive surgery to look like their favorite celebrity.” In one episode, Mike and Matt, 20-year-old twin brothers from Arizona, wanted to look like Brad Pitt and become famous actors one day. They believed the only thing holding them back from big careers in Hollywood was their "unattractive" face and that if they looked more like Brad, they would finally make it big. So Mike and Matt both got rhinoplasty, chin implants, and porcelain veneers and Mike also had cheek implants.

A 27-year old woman wanted to look like Britney Spears, thinking it would help her career as an impersonator. Some other celebrities chosen as models for plastic surgery by some individuals were Angelina Jolie, who herself had plastic surgery to enlarge her lips; Kate Winslet; Jay-Lo; Pamela Anderson, chosen by a young woman whose goal was to become a Playboy Bunny; Elvis Presley; and, believe it or not, Michael Jackson.

QUESTION:

Would you have plastic surgery in an attempt to have the facial features or body of a celebrity of your choice? If so, who would it be, and why would you make that choice?

A Frightening Scenario

Bush's last day in office: 1-20-09, assuming that the President does not declare federal martial law, which he can do under the provisions of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. This act allows the President to ignore the Insurrection Act , which historically prevented presidents from involving the military in domestic law enforcement. Under the provisions of the John Warner Authorization Act of 2007, the President can declare that a “public emergency” exists and then station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." In other words he can enforce acquiescence of American citizens by ordering the military onto the streets of America and establishing military law enforcement. The term for this is “martial law.”

The President can use the military when he determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("REFUSE" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

Now comes the truly frightening part. The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of PROTESTERS, so-called "illegal aliens," "POTENTIAL terrorists" and other "UNDESIRABLES" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.

KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. “With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., OR TO SUPPORT THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS.

And what might those new programs be?

Smart Foot

Friday, November 9th - HOW TO OUTSMART YOUR RIGHT FOOT: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ASK YOU TO DRAW THE NUMBER "6" IN THE AIR WITH YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU ARE NOT TOLD HOW TO DRAW THE "6". SO INSTEAD OF STARTING AT THE TOP OF THE "6", START AT THE CENTER OF THE SPIRAL AND WORK OUTWARDS. THAT WAY, BOTH YOUR FOOT AND FINGER ARE MOVING IN A CLOCKWISE DIRECTION, CAUSING NO PROBLEMS IN MOVEMENT. TRY IT.

There must be a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. The question is: does it hold true for everyone? And is it possible to counteract this reflex through force of will?

Can you outsmart your foot? Most people can’t.

1. While sitting at your computer desk, lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles with it.

2. Now, while doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your right hand. Your foot will now move in a counterclockwise direction.

Well, did you outsmart your foot?



This armless guitar player lives in San Diego:

Cool, Clear Toilet Water

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

--Philip K. Dick
American science fiction writer (1930-1982)

The San Diego region, like many other regions of the United States, is getting concerned about the future of its water supply. One method for dealing with the looming problem of a shortage of potable water is a plan to pump recycled sewage water into our drinking reservoirs. Last week the San Diego City Council authorized a demonstration project that will pump recycled sewage into one of our city reservoirs. Ten years ago, the same plan was doomed when opponents of the plan came up with a phrase that stuck in the minds of San Diegans: “The Toilet to Tap Plan.”

Proponents of the plan say that “toilet to tap” does not adequately describe the process used to make the sewage and waste water potable. It will be treated and filtered by reverse osmosis before being mixed with fresh water in the reservoirs. Those who favor the plan use such phrases as “indirect potable reuse”, “reservoir augmentation”, and the euphemism “water repurification”. They maintain that the recycled sewage actually will be cleaner than the water we presently get from the Colorado River, which has sewage plants flowing into it.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of San Diegans, opponents of the plan still prefer to call it the “Toilet to Tap Plan.” Some opponents even state that that the city is building a pipe that will lead directly from one’s toilet to one’s kitchen sink.

In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare has Juliet say this to Romeo: “What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Applied to the drinking water controversy, one might say, “What’s in a name? That which we call drinking water by any other name would still taste as sweet.”