Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 42,284
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 42,284
- 2016 (8)
- 2015 (5)
- 2014 (4)
- 2013 (5)
- 2012 (13)
- 2011 (1)
- December (1)
Barely starting his Politico article, the writer threw in a reference to Aztec human sacrifice, attempting to show how versed he is in Mexican culture, far beyond the lowly, too easy, and potentially offensive taco truck references. But, *wait* a minnit!1 Wasn't Quezalcoatl a "good" god, not one of the bloodthirsty ones?!1 Wasn't he one of those "Second Coming" ones of the fair hair?!
Well, some Googling and Wiki-ing soon yielded up that dear Quetzy was one among many of the gods and *ALL* of them guzzled blood and scarfed flesh. So it appears the writer made the reference correctly, at least by due diligence in Googling/Wiki-ing or perhaps via Mel GIBSON's brilliant "Apocalypto", while still not being absolved for being "precious" ("precious" in the sense of the literary term).
Another exonerating consideration for the GHOULiani/Aztec reference is that he has been dubbed a ghoul since the Keith days, and has now achieved full physical resemblance of the hideousness of the gods, to wit:
That said, perhaps our estimable DUer Xipe Totec has some insights here.
(from Wiki: ) "Perhaps even worse off was the impersonator of Xipe Totec who, at the climax of the festival of Tlacaxipehualiztli, was skinned to honour the god who was himself known as the ‘Flayed One’. .... Those sacrificed to Xipe Totec were also skinned, most probably in imitation of seeds shedding their husks."
Is Rudy Giuliani Losing His Mind?
By Kevin Baker
...Giuliani raved and gesticulated about the podium like an Aztec priest offering up fresh beating hearts to Quetzalcoatl.
The Aztecs would perform a series of rituals on nearby tribesman, sacrifice them using an obsidian knife, and then donate their blood to the Aztec god Acolnahuacatl.
In the Aztec "Legend of the Five Suns", all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live.
Human sacrifice was in this sense the highest level of an entire panoply of offerings through which the Aztecs sought to repay their debt to the gods.
In Aztec mythology, after Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca created the world, they put their creation in order and placed Mictlantecuhtli and his wife in the underworld. .... To console the spirit of Cipactli the gods promised her human hearts and blood in appeasement.
That said, here:
Posted by UTUSN | Sun Sep 4, 2016, 11:57 AM (0 replies)
O.K., so that vet decided to "give" DRUMPF his Purple Heart. It's not only DRUMPF who doesn't know shit, but the Washington Post (below) doesn't either, and lots of dear civilians don't "get" military jargon/customs, either. Where the WashPo says it's "legal" for DRUMPF to "accept" it, all this means is that somebody gave him a present: Somebody who owned it decided to give it to him. It didn't have to be the Service member who originally earned it. The EARNING is totally separate from the POSSESSION of it.
So, this military member (now veteran) earned this decoration. Once it's his (or hers or whomever's), the owner can "give" it like any other possession. Who said that a physical piece of fabric ribbon and non-precious medal was imbued with some kind of magical powers? The only meaning of EARNING it is the event of earning it. The physical fabric/non-precious-metal is a knickknack commemoration or acknowledgment of the event which is OVER.
So, our dad, grandad, other relative, buddy who originally EARNED the medal can GIVE it to whomever. This has NO correlation to the recipient's having EARNED it. The "giving" of it is "legal" as the WashPo says (although without understanding what it is saying).
Now. About what is a "real" or "original" medal vs what is a "duplicate". Down below here, is a veterans website (one of thousands) that sells medals, ribbons, and countless other mugs, license plate frames, or whatever.
I think that some dear civilians imagine that the military bestows all of these knickknacks in some Richard WAGNER opera ceremony. Uh, no.
I have seven little, non-heroic decorations. You get one (National Defense Service Medal) just for signing your name on the enlistment contract during a time of "war" (non-declared or Declared). I got my Vietnam Service Medal when one of my feet set foot off the airplane onto Vietnam dirt. Plus, another and another and another (keep going) every 3 or so months when the name of the "Campaign" changed names. The Republic of South Vietnam gave all of us two of their medals for us helping out. The said Republic doesn't exist anymore, so what do these two medals mean now? And I could go on.
I am not denigrating my or anybody else's medals. Plenty of other personnel earned some HEAVY DUTY medals of personal heroism. Mine are not heroic, but they are mine.
As for which ones are "actual" or a "copy," uh, there was no ceremony for me. The only one that was presented to me was the Vietnam service one, and not in a ceremony, just, "Hey, guy, go by the Personnel office to pick up your medal." Otherwise, they told us we were entitled to certain ribbons to wear on our uniforms when we were going on Liberty out in public.
As for being "awarded" what this means is that the first one is FREE (given by the government). It is NOT made of gold or whatever precious metal. After it gets dirty or frayed, it's up to you to BUY replacements (not "duplicates"). They're all not-gold or whatever. All of them are exactly the same, all of the replacements BOUGHT are the same as the first one given free by the government.
As for this fellow, Lt Col Louis DORFMAN, he's a veteran. He GAVE the thing to whomever (a.k.a. DRUMPF). It is a meaningless activity. I can say Mr DORFMAN is an idiot for his admiring DRUMPF, but it's up to him.
Now: As for WEARING it (like it's EARNED) is a totally different thing, big BIG no-no. Even at the post office, I went to buy stamps and the clerk (seeing my Navy cap) offered me Purple Heart stamps. I was SHOCKED and said, "I don't have a Purple Heart!1"
"Just gimme a coupla aspirin. I've already got a Purple Heart."
It’s legal for Donald Trump to accept a Purple Heart. How he handled it is up for debate.
.... ... Trump drew laughs by saying he asked the veteran whether it was the “real one or a copy,” and added that Dorfman told him it was his actual medal. ....
Added retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey in the same MSNBC segment: “Look, a Purple Heart isn’t like an Emmy or Oscar, for God’s sakes. … There’s just been a series of babbles out of Mr. Trump that tells me he has no conception about the armed forces or what it means to serve. That certainly includes the notion of sacrifice.” ....
Following Trump's statement, NBC reporter Katy Tur tweeted that she had spoken with (Lt Col Louis) Dorfman and that he said the medal he gave to Trump was a copy of the one awarded to him.
Hey, DRUMPF, a Purple Heart costs $42.95, anybody can buy one here or thousands of other websites:
Posted by UTUSN | Wed Aug 3, 2016, 11:50 PM (8 replies)
And when I've mentioned my p.o.v. about it here on this board I've been told a couple of times that I should just be gracious.
It's especially grating on the VA 800# in light of the past decades of their horrible headlines about their dealing with vets.
I'm appreciative of the life experience, both good and bad, my enlistment resulted in. It broadened me to things that I wouldn't have found in such a concentrated dose otherwise. And for that appreciation I wear a USN ballcap and other things, not in the gung-ho John WAYNE (fake veteran in the movies; draft dodger) kind of way, and I would like to wear these things for my own reasons without triggering an obligatory gung-ho John WAYNE type of reaction.
As Charlie RANGEL has said for many years, many enlistees join the military for reasons of not being able to get higher education and jobs rather than for the stereotypical reasons that chickenhawks imagine.
I've had bozos in Happy Hour situations come up to me because of my cap or something and SCREAM six inches from my face, "SIR! YES SIR!!!!!!" because of what they've seen in movies. Really.
I'm willing to agree that time spent is "service," but its own reward.
Posted by UTUSN | Tue Jun 14, 2016, 04:53 PM (0 replies)
First, some definitions:
* “They” – who are “they”? 1- his outright supporters. 2- Repukes who opposed or were scared to lose with him. 3- Latino Repukes who are now outraged. 4- Media enablers.
* “Neutral” (as in judges presiding in his lawsuits) means “finding in his favor.” When he says minority judges have conflicts of interest over his anti-minority/race/religion beliefs and cannot be “neutral” he means anything not in his favor is not “neutral.” Carrying his postulate to its natural extreme, in a DRUMPF society there would not be any judges at all, at least not in his thousands of lawsuits, because any and every adverse ruling towards him would be attributed to something in their personal history that would be a conflict. No adverse rulings would be allowable, period.
* “DRUMPF” – is this usage of "DRUMPF" participating against him in his own kind of “heritage” prejudice? To me, it is highlighting that immigration is a very large topic in his life story (grandparents, mother, two of his three wives) and yet he made it something *negative*. In the light of that, to just say “TRUMP” would be to play along with his apparent façade that he sprung generically “American” like from Zeus’s head. Some amateur psychologizing here, is his fury on immigration a self-hating thing?!1
*********So, proceeding right along...
What did they, the core supporters, expect? We are told he freed them with political incorrectness, to say aloud what they/everybody secretly thinks but have been shamed into silence, meaning racist stuff. The ugliness in him was there from Day 1 but only now are there signs it might be coming home to roost. Did they think that their ugly inner beliefs would be made to be mainstream, normal, and respectable?
So what did they/Repuke leaders think, that their voters have spoken so they must go along and after the DRUMPF debacle (win or lose, there *will* be a debacle) they can claim to be exonerated by having qualified their support?
And the media enablers. They started out acting like DRUMPF’s bombs were CUTE, like he was a naif on “deep” policy matters and was only spouting refreshing, unfiltered things. And now it’s too late. The same as the media during 2000 when they thought Shrub was cute and any hint of toughness on him was said to be harsh, like he somehow deserved kid gloves.
And what did the ethnic/minority Repukes, expect when they became Repukes? The broad strokes are that Repuke-ism is for the racist and the greedy, that is all. One Ana NAVARRO, a media Repuke, is being lauded for a rant against DRUMPF’s racism. She has a tweet saying she became a Repuke at eight years old, RAYGUN blah blah. Isn’t this proof that eight years old ain’t the time for making life decisions?!1 Meanwhile, Alberto GONZALEZ, whatever mental age *he* is, continues his blind Repuke-ism by justifying DRUMPF’s right to question the “fairness” of judges based on ethnicity. And Ruben NAVARRETTE continues his animus toward “White Liberal males” with his accustomed “advice,” this time on how DRUMPF should “follow his own trail of breadcrumbs” to accomplish wooing Latinos (hah hah).
As for the violence of some supposedly anti-DRUMPF individuals, some five (5) scenarios: Could be such violence infringes on the free speech and association of others and everybody; could be legitimate revolution-type redress against threatened oppression and discrimination; could be criminal delinquency taking advantage of opportunity like looting at race riots; could be real life conspiracy of DRUMPF false flagging; could be tit for tat against DRUMPF-ites pepper spraying them. Last night’s Kanye WEST “riot” shows that criminal delinquency is very real and sparked by the most random things. It also honestly true that we Libs, with our characteristic of looking within for root causes of things, tend to wring our hands and blame ourselves and be concerned for others who might be oppressed (some of our enemies), so we are particularly susceptible to we’re-BETTER-than-that, meaning we’re BETTER. Well, no we’re not. All of us, Lib or wingnut, are just human and contain the whole spectrum from good to evil.
The single biggest point about DRUMPF is what I learned from defending Bill CLINTON, that somebody with the big personality and the big personal problems turns everything away from the national agenda into spending all energy into defending him, a total distraction.
Posted by UTUSN | Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:17 PM (0 replies)
This is worth it:"newly emboldened (by DRUMPF)American Racist." Cannot vote him,stay home,or spoiler
The Newly Emboldened American Racist
I have to thank Mr. Trump for opening my eyes to the American ugly I didn’t want to see. I needed a wake up call. I’m not closed off in some strange, futuristic liberal world. I live in a diverse community with a mix of political and social viewpoints, and I consistently read newspapers and websites with differing ideologies. I know my American history and I know what racist people have been saying about President Obama for the last eight years. I’ve watched the videos of young black men shot by cops. And I’ve listened to the calls for racial justice on college campuses. I’ve worked on a college campus where I was the minority, and my students have spoken and written about their experiences. Throughout my life I’ve heard stories from my Jewish friends about the nasty comments they’ve endured. So yes, I understand how deeply racism and bigotry run through American culture — as much as any educated, white, Protestant person can really understand it — even if I don’t hear it in my home or my backyard.
But what I didn’t understand until this election, until I started paying closer attention to the voices of ordinary Americans, is how terrifying it is to read what some of them write on public forums, or to hear them say out loud what they really think about other Americans. The racists and bigots of America have always been out there. There have always been hideous trolls on the Internet. But now they are emboldened in a big way by the bellicose Donald Trump. He’s opened Pandora’s box, and nobody can shut it.
Look: I’m going to write this again and again, right up until Election Day. You cannot view this election solely as a choice between two platforms, two parties, or two personalities. This election is about much bigger issues. It’s about the way way we look at people, and talk about them, and care for them. It’s about the soul of America and its relationships to the world. If you care about that, you cannot vote Trump, or stay home, or vote for a third party spoiler.
How can this man, who has fomented so much anger and hate, represent the United States to the World, and to its own people? How will minorities feel safe in the U.S. if he is president? How can this country stand to be even further divided? The chasm is already too wide.
In his victory speech after Indiana, Trump said, “we’re going to love each other, and cherish each other.” But the hate will go on and on, If Trump is president, a possibility that moved one giant step closer to reality Tuesday night. And if that happens, none of our bubbles will be able to save us from ourselves.
Posted by UTUSN | Wed May 4, 2016, 10:07 PM (3 replies)
Yes, I do know that, and that despite their throwing a hissy fit over Julius's taking over,after him
they never looked back at their Republic. No, Tiberius and many others didn't always/often pick the most qualified. Tiberius picked Caligula out of contempt and spite, saying that Rome deserved the vileness. It was more often than not who was left standing after this or that slaughter.
Now, not that my O.P. rant is so original, but it's GENERAL, not a pretense at scholarship, so the point is not the details but that a system that is not reformed and refreshed will collapse under the dead wood of its own weight. Oh, well, they all do, even over the 5,000 years of Chinese dynasties.
Ah, well, my rant was my own personal indulgence, so I'll take a good night.
Posted by UTUSN | Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:30 AM (0 replies)
I'm not going to apologize for what I post. Short of such an apology, it should suffice to reveal to anybody it might concern that I have insight into my own pluses and minuses and to some degree of awareness while they happen, such that I am actively choosing to let my minuses fly about as they might. FWIW, I am too often offended or embarrassed by my own posts, but also decided at some point not to run away from them.
Like many others, I have whined about spending much time and energy honing a coherent and original post only to see it sink like a stone, while any little off-the-wall nutcase free association of mine will reach heights of flames, outrage, and contempt.
The internet, this DU discussion board, has been the single biggest education for me of my life. And isn't DU so incredibly fortunate to be the exclusive beneficiary of my divine contributions (Do I really need a Sarcasm tag here?!1)?!1 Really, having achieved what used to be considered wonderful academic credentials, I realized that my Liberal Arts were worthless, that the one skill that made an actual difference in my real world work experience was: TYPING. And this discussion board has taught me some (not enough for me; I'm really too backward to have picked up much) life experience, street smarts, like developing a shell and occasionally being big enough to let some things slide.
But what I'm trying to say is that, especially here in Lounge, besides just this being an internet discussion board fer-gudness'sake (tag line from
Posted by UTUSN | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:17 PM (13 replies)
Am saving this into my Journal so I won't lose it.
Make7’s chart: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=1674
Chart ASCII: http://www.theasciicode.com.ar/extended-ascii-code/majuscule-c-cedilla-uppercase-ascii-code-128.html
á Á é É í Í ó Ó ú Ú ¿ ¡ ü ñ Ñ ç Ç
æ Æ ø Ø £ º ® ½ ¼ ¾ © ¢ ─ │ ┤ ÷ ± ¶ §
Below, substitute open/close brackets for paretheses:
font size: (font size=5) (/font) (font size=6) (/font) (font size=7) (/font)
(b) (/b) (i) (/i) (u) (/u) (strike) (/strike)
(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow") (/FONT)
Posted by UTUSN | Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:58 PM (1 replies)
Truth or Consequences
May 2012 By Joehagan
.... And that (1996) is when a mysterious document began circulating in Austin that would serve as the Rosetta stone of the Bush National Guard controversy. The document, a single-page letter written by an anonymous author and addressed to a U. S. attorney, described an alleged secret deal struck between George W. Bush and Ben Barnes in which Barnes agreed to withhold the story of getting the governor into the Guard in exchange for Bush’s securing the GTECH contract against competing bidders.
The memo fingered a Bush aide named Reggie Bashur as the one who brokered the alleged quid pro quo: “Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story and the Governor talked to (Miers) two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid.” And indeed, the previous summer, Miers had renewed the GTECH contract without a bid, against the wishes of state Republicans. ....
... One year after the fateful 60 Minutes segment aired, two FBI agents paid a visit to the Manhattan apartment of Larry Littwin, the former Lottery Commission executive director. If he were cleared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the agents asked, what might he say about (Harriett) Miers’s invovement with GTECH during her time as chair of the commission? According to Jerome Corsi, who had resurfaced, post-Kerry, as one of Miers’s fiercest critics, what Littwin proposed to allege was quite a lot: that more than $160,000 in legal fees Miers collected from Bush in the nineties were a de facto payoff for maintaining the quid pro quo agreement with Ben Barnes and GTECH.
Regardless of the legitimacy of these allegations, White House officials were paying attention, in part because they were coming from the right. Miers’s nomination was already in deep trouble by the time Littwin emerged. But Corsi remains convinced to this day that the threat of Littwin’s testimony was the last straw for Miers. According to him, it was the GTECH deal, and not the CBS memos, that could have been the real smoking gun against Bush. “The day after they validated that Littwin was going to be called to the Senate Judiciary Committee, that’s when she pulled her nomination,” Corsi told me. ....
Posted by UTUSN | Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:32 PM (18 replies)
Actually, I sort of liked it for being serviceable but mostly loved the FDR setting and references.
Now, let’s clear the next year’s garbage out of the way: I care about the Democratic AGENDA, not the personalities (idols). I don’t worship her, OBAMA, the KENNEDYs, or several other past Democratic nominees. But any Dem short of criminality is better than any Repuke, and our system is WINNER TAKES IT ALL. All of our Dem nominees have been more intelligent, more NOBLE, more DECENT than any of their opponents, but noble LOSERS accomplish nothing. Only the WINNER gets to do anything, even if only NOMINATING thousands of judges and bureaucrats/grunts who make policy down the line.
As for Hillary, I was very strong for her in ‘08. But she was a bust. OBAMA totally flummoxed her out of nowhere. Let’s be clear: ANYBODY could have won against the Repukes that year because of George W. BUSH. ANYBODY. The Repukes have mocked OBAMA about “CHANGE” being non-existent and empty. Actually, obviously, the word “CHANGE” was code for: ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM GEORGE W. BUSH. No other agenda was needed.
As for Hillary and my support today. If she’s the nominee (who else?) of course I will support her as I have every Dem nominee from every wing of the coalition. I don’t care about finding a candidate who fits a checklist of appropriate issues: If they don’t have the common touch to WIN, yammering over issues is as futile as a college bull session of "If I Ruled the World" or a medieval monk's thoughts on angels.
As for her personally, coming from me: She’s been around too many blocks, for starters. She irritates/grates me, her voice, her total lack of charisma. I was raised in a family of strong women and my first vote was for a woman, and yet I was antagonized that at her rally in ‘08, I guess it was supposed to be for women and “girls” only since they gave sidewise ugly looks at us males, like we weren’t supposed to be there. She’s a lousy candidate: She never saw OBAMA or anybody else coming; threw away millions on the same tired P.R. people who have lost campaigns for decades; mismanaged the campaign to end up in debt; she’s a RED MEAT TARGET for wingnuts. Very possibly, she MIGHT LOSE, which is the worst thing ever. If she wins, get ready for Fake Impeachment #2. If she loses, get ready for JEB CROW SHRUB, the worst ever.
I have hope that she is different from Bill in that in her lifetime of politics she knows how precious being in office is, to work for the agenda, instead of Bill's having wasted the winning with his hanky panky: What I learned from Bill was that, with a leader who has to be defended non-stop, all our precious energies are wasted on defending one individual instead of all of our energies, including the leader's, being spent on the agenda.
Posted by UTUSN | Sun Jun 14, 2015, 12:00 PM (1 replies)