Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

Here is our President of the United States - the role model for our children - and a bit of Dick too :


Bush DUI


Bush - Party Animal


and Cheney too

Folks, we have at least one dangerous, drug abuser running the show. And here we are worrying about Kerry's medals.

Let's all sing "Flip, flop, fly. Bush don't care if we die..."

Hold the keyboard, Batman, this just in...

Bush Acknowledges Iraq 'Miscalculation'

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said for the first time on Thursday he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" after U.S. troops went to Iraq, The New York Times reported. The insurgency, he maintained, was the unintended result of a "swift victory" that led to Iraqi troops disappearing into the cities and mounting a rebellion.

Bush also told the newspaper he did not believe his Democratic opponent had lied about his time in Vietnam. The group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has aired advertisements challenging John Kerry's account of his service, and claiming Kerry lied about circumstances surrounding his war medals. Kerry has accused Bush of using the group as a front to run a smear campaign.

And that should do it for Bush and do it in for Kerry. The gullible public will hear Bush crow that the Iraqi rebellion as a fault, a miscalculation, of having too good a Military. They won't question our being there in the first place. By tying the statement in with a claim supporting Kerry's military record castrates any attempt by Kerry to modify Bush's Iraq statement. Wonderful - four more years of lunacy. Too swift a victory? If it was too swift how'd they have time to hide in the cities? Not swift enough I guess. And how can they hide if they didn't have support from the locals? Now, will Bush fess up to a miscalculation of WMDs and the imminent threat to the U.S.?

And catch the not-so-subtle double entendre of "swift victory" - which can also refer to the Swifties attack on Kerry. Bush is probably chuckling over that one (or he will be once someone explains what a double entendre is to him).

Someone noted, and sorry I can't remember where I read it, that you may not hear that the number of troops killed in Iraq has exceeded 1,000 when and if it happens because it's perceived as a psychological magic number, a number that wouldn't bode well for Georgie. If there is a liberal media bias I'd expect that number to be blasted on the front page. But if there's a Government press for suppression of that data, well, what would that say about the Administration? If I were Kerry I'd hammer home repeatedly about the number of troops killed in support of a suspect invasion while bin Laden runs free. Of course, if bin Laden gets found it wouldn't matter what Kerry says. Bush would dominate the headlines.

Also read somewhere that Hussein was strongly pushing in 2001 (or so) for OPEC to switch from dollars to euros. This move would've benefited France (and the EU) and Russia, and hurt the U.S.. With Hussein out, the push is conveniently dead and the dollar remains the OPEC currency of choice. Hmmmm, very coincidental in a wonderful, paranoid, conspiratal way. I guess we had to protect our interests.

If Bush wins watch as many electronic election results suddenly show up as fraudulent. Watch in horror as this will result in no action whatsoever as the Supreme Court will again declare the Election valid. The Republicans will say the Dems are crybabies over a few voting glitches.

I've griped before about how the Repuiblicans are true masters at dirty politics. And apparently it's working as Bush's poll numbers creep slowly upwards. The Dems need to, during the Republican convention, accidently let loose a few faked parody photos - such as the infamous Abu Ghraib scene with the female guard standing over the prisoner. Bush's face needs to replace hers. Crap like that and the Dems should then slowly rebuke those photos - just the way Bush does - but only after the damage has been done. Notice how Bush is calling for legislation against these "shadow" outside groups? This is a Win-Win for Bush. They (the Swifties) do the damage against Kerry with lies and innuendo. They (MoveOn.Org) does damage against Bush with facts. If Bush rails against these outside groups it looks like he's for "clean" politics. If Kerry doesn't side with Bush on this issue then Bush will say Kerry supports "dirty" politics, despite Kerry's claim that it's a matter of Free Speech. Clever, no? Shit sticks and that what Bush throws. That what people remember. Even worse, if some sort of legislation does get passed, the Swifties are only a relatively small bunch of rich folks. No big loss for Bush. But MoveOn.org is a lot of people who may find themselves under Governmental scrutiny. This would be a major blow for that type of grassroots movement and a variety of Freedoms to boot.

What I want to know is if Kerry wins whether the Republicans will stand firm behind him as True American Patriots. That's what they expect of everyone else - "You're either with us or you support Terrorism!". Let's see if they do as they say.

Compassionate Conservative
Compassion - to feel sympathy for another's pain.

I got it now. Bush calls himself the Compassionate Conservative because he feels our pain. Mind you that in order for him to have compassion we must be in a state of pain. Thus his political agenda of illegal wars, raping the environment, pilfering tax dollars, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. By making us suffer he can feel compassion. What a guy, what a nice guy.

To translate: Corporate profits are more important than individual privacy. How much corporate profits are lost to simple theft? Yet we don't see searches of bags. How much corporate profits are lost to greedy Executives? Yet we don't see any reeling in of high pay or excessive stock options. How much corporate time and productivity is lost due to drug testing? Probably a little less than if you didn't have it but still the company has to pay for these tests so either way it may work out the same. Except here, you the individual lose.

Testing can not distinguish between on- and off- work drug usage. If you toke on Sunday the test will be positive on Monday even though you'll be fine that day. It can't distinguish between second-hand marijuana smoke versus first-hand. Tests may have problems with prescription drugs. In short, you may end up explaining to a corporate doctor why you failed a test and in doing so reveal more details of your private life than a company needs to know.

Testing is implied morality, that you shouldn't do drugs. Fine. Let's add alcohol to the list of illegal drugs. Sure, alcohol is legal but it's far more likely to be imbibed in corporate settings or duringlunch, far more likely to be the cause of (car) accidents. If safety is truly a concern let's make alcohol illegal.

OK, you don't mind testing. You think it helps safety matters. How would you feel if when you went to drive your car you haad to take a breathalyzer test? The car wouldn't start without passing the test. Don't laugh, it's been done. From that, it's a short step to design it where the car wouldn't run if you failed a general drug test. Picture that - peeing into your car - but I was imagining more of submitting a hair or saliva sample. And then picturing that as you drive you'd be attached to the car by a tube in your mouth and the car would continually monitor your drug state.

Benny Hill DVD
I loved watching the Benny Hill show and now his works are being re-released on DVD, complete and unadulterated. Season 1 is out but 3 DVDs for $35 on sale?!? $50 full retail?!? (insert Benny Hill look of befuddlement here) No! My rule of thumb is $8 or less per actual content DVD, meaning if a movie comes out on 2 DVDs and one of them is filled with extras, I'll pay no more than $8. Extras are just that and the movie powers that be shouldn't expect me - the consumer - to pay for them. Heck, I picked up Xena Season 3 for $40 bucks with 8 DVDs plus an extra.

But this rant is nothing new. Music CDs are overpriced. DVDs are overpriced. And wait until the new high-density DVDs comes out with 5 times the storage. Hopefully you'll pay a little more to get a lot more but I expect you'll get even more filler.

Abu Ghraib
New Pentagon report on Abu Ghraib seems to imply ol' Donald Rumsfeld was supportive of the antics or at least didn't disapprove. Will he take personal responsibility for his actions? Don't count on it. None of the Bushits take responsibility for negative events.

Having It Both Ways
The Swifties launch a smear campaign against Kerry. Bush does nothing, says nothing and reaps the publicity. When complaints against the tactics come out then Bush comments against all smear ads. Finally, when enough anti-Swifties sentiment is built and Kerry has fully committed to disproving the Swifties does Bush denounce the Swifties and appear as an upstanding citizen committed to runnign a clean campaign. Puke!

But it points out that the Democrats cannot play unfairly as well as the Republicans. When it comes to dirty politics the Republicans are unchallenged. Here I am wasting yet more blogging space and mental effort defending Kerry and denouncing Bush on the topic of Kerry's war record?!? Talk about leading the popular bull by the nose. We should be griping about Bush's screwing of the economy, screwing of the environment, screwing of the military, screwing of the American people but - no! - it's about Kerry's purple hearts.

I have a great idea. Let's have a no-holds barred, bare knuckle fistfight between Bush and Kerry for the Presidency of the United States. That will tell us who's fit and worthy. Seriously. The event can be televised live. It'll bring in income. It'll show the world that our candidates are tough SOBs and not to be trifled with. Heck, the winner can go up against that North Korean dude - yeah!

Starting odds: Kerry 3:2 over Bush. Kerry has his military experience tempered by his war wounds. Bush has a more youthful vigor and sports ability tempered by his lack of military experience (he may not know how to fight dirty).

Nader, you'll note, would get his ass kicked easily by either candidate.

Bush's Daughters
Barbara and Jenna are campaigning for Bush to entice the youth vote. Their platform - vote for Bush "because he's a really nice guy." That's it - that's the reason I was looking for to vote for Bush. he's a nice guy. Wow! He'll have to be a great president because - dammit - he's nice!

How nice to see the apples don't fall far from the tree, that the Bush daughters are as intellectually "deep" as their Pop. Yep, the youth will roll out the vote for that one because we all know the youth are dumb and vacuous. Of course, if Bush continues with his (lack of) Education policies our youth truly will be that dumb and vacuous. But everything that Bush does is OK because his daughters have said that he's a nice guy.

I tried to control my fury over the sheer stupidity of it all. Most obvious to me was the blatant invasion of privacy. Here I could be a great worker who happens to take a single toke before starting a new job and - boom - I won't get it because of failing the drug test. My neighbor could get blindingly drunk the night before starting a new job, wake up in a pool of vomit, and go to work because he passed the drug test. A drug test cannot distinguish whether a person took something illegal on their own time or on work's time. If on work's time, fine - terminate the person, fire their ass. But if I toke on my own time it's none of my work's (or Government's) business. If my work is obviously impared because of a drug - any drug legal or otherwise - then that's the issue that needs to be tackled. Drug testing merely imposes a penalty where none may be warranted. A college kid trying out for his first job may lose it due to second-hand marijuana smoke from a party he went to the night before, or maybe he did partake, so what? Previous partaking of drugs is not a measure of work performance. President Clinton was an admitted toker.

And that got me thinking to this...

If drug usage at work is so important especially in Safety sensitive areas or in matters of National Security, I propose that random drug testing be mandatory after hiring but not a prerequisite before. This will restore some privacy and focus the matter back in terms of work impairment. If a person's work isn't being impaired then no problem, right?

Further, since there are no Persons more critical to National Security than the President, Vice President, etc. and, as example to all of us, the random testing should be done quarterly and should include alcohol tests (to check for "Fitness for Duty". Think about it. The President of the United States can order nuclear strikes. If he's impaired due to drugs wouldn't you want to know about it?

The testing should be done by an known independent 3rd party with the results available to the American People. The President undergoes yearly check-ups at a military base but, c'mon, if the President has little drug problem, you think they'll announce it?

If the President won't do it then why should any of us? If the President doesn't want to pee in a cup then why should we? If the President doesn't want his privacy invaded then why should ours be fair game?

(*sigh*) I know the answer to these: "It's a matter of National Security to not reveal matters of the President's health..." so Georgie can go back to his kegger.

Not So Swift Attila

The Swifties are nothing more than Republican Liars and while they may not be obviously blessed by Bush note that Bush isn't telling them to stop lying either. This after one of the Swifties admitted that he lied!

Do I get a Purple Heart for this?

Back into the fray...

On the News yesterday: Michael Jackson made a surprise visit to a South-Central AME Church. Wow, if it was a surprise, how did the Media find out? They were obviously waiting for him so either his security is lax or they tipped off the Media beforehand to make the "surprise" a news event. Guess which one. Michael probably hasn't set foot in a church in years but now with his image in need of repair off he goes. (See? I'm being good - no mention of alter boys...) BTW, 10-to-1 the Defense tries to OJ this case and make it about race...

The Bushits are attacking Kerry's war record by claiming that the medals weren't deserved. This is to distract everyone from the fact that Bush doesn't even have a war record. Sure, Bush served his country by learning how to fly an even-then obsolete plane for the National Guard before bailing out early to work for Daddy but does that compare to being in a War? The Bushits can question whether Kerry deserved his medals but - hey! - Kerry saw action! The only action Bush saw involved, well, bush. The Bushits complain that Kerry came back from the Vietnam and turned anti-war. Gosh, wonder why? Could it be the killings - the horrible reality of war? Or the greater realization that the war wasn't going anywhere, not serving anyone? Perhaps George W. and Dick need to see some action to understand what their actions mean - that war is not a simple military exercise or an opportunity for a photo-op, that it has deep human consequences.

I recently finished an Ethics Training at work. One of the no-nos had to do with contracting out work to companies or people that you have non-work relationships with, thatbeing you can't help them get contracts. For example, if I have some work that needs contracting out it is unethical (at least at my work) for me to help my friends at my previous job get the contract, either by helping them with the proposal or by granting them the contract directly. It's called "Conflict of Interest" and if violated one could get fired, at least at my work. I'm very relieved to see that our Government doesn't have that ethical problem, not with Bush and crew at the helm.

Hiring private police to protect our overseas military bases - who took a bribe on that one?

Personally, I'm sick that tremendous money and resources are being spent, wasted, for Election 2004 and we're getting Bush or Kerry. I'm tired of both sides claiming Truth and Morality belong solely to them. I'm tired of Bush acting like he has the whole thing fixed and I'm scared that he does. I'm sick that Kerry isn't doing more to distinguish himself and taking more of a stand against Bush.

Olympics. It looks like NBC has toned down the rampant "in-your-face-we're Americans!" Patriotism and "up-close-and-personal" biographies of previous coverages. I'm seeing sports. My kids are seeing sports. It's enjoyable despite the American basketball loss and the Phelps loss. Thorpedo - what a great nickname!

And still no sign of bin Laden...

BOSTON (Reuters) - John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record.

George Elliott, who was one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam when he was awarded medals for heroic actions, had signed an affidavit suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

In the document, Elliott said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

But in Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott said: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott told the newspaper he thinks Kerry did deserve the medal.

George Bush has added another verbal gaffe to his long list of blunders.

The latest addition to the catalogue of Bushisms came as he addressed Pentagon chiefs during the signing ceremony of a defence spending bill.The US President said: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Unabashed Racist Wins GOP Primary in Tenn.

By WOODY BAIRD, Associated Press Writer

MEMPHIS, Tenn. - An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.

With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.

In November, the GOP candidate will oppose Rep. John Tanner (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who has represented the northwest Tennessee district for 15 years.

Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."

And not a peep from the GOP. If the doofus wins expect to see more like him. If he loses, well, it was only a test of how much crap Americans are willing to take. Meanwhile, the Bushits are attacking Kerry on his War experience, saying he may have manipulated the system in order to get his three Purple Hearts and that he should release his Military Records immediately. And how much wartime did Bush see? And how much manipulation did Bush enjoy?

This is what pisses me off: If Bush says it, it's The Truth. If Kerry says it, it's Politics.

The Bushits would have us believe that Georgie doesn't play politics, is beyond reproach, is perfectly honest, has vstly more military experience than Kerry, know what's best for our country despite all evidence to the contrary. We should get these poor fools some anti-psychotic medication or a long ladder. They're no longer on Planet Earth.

I like that word: Bushits. No more Rightists or "Bush et al" or the Crony Boyz, etc. Bushits, Bushits, Bushits. The Bushit Boyz.

"Results count!" And looking at Kerry's record in Government, he looks like your typical politician. Flippy-floppy, whichever way the polls blow. But you look at Bush's record and he looks like a typical politician but worse. Flippy-floppy - what's best for me and my friends? Is there anyone Bush hasn't screwed over? Maybe that's why he needs to be elected, all the pockets haven't been picked. OK, that's crude. But look at Bush's results: bin Laden - not caught; Al Qaeda - wounded but very strong and recruiting like crazy; U.S. military - spread too thin over too many fronts (something Bush criticized about Clinton); economy - only now recovering just in time for the elections; environment - don't go there because there's no there to go to; cronyism and secrecy - BINGO! Bush gets major league huzzahs for increasing secrecy, cronyism, and disinformation, for kowtowing to corporations instead of general Americans.

"Tax cuts, instead of tax increases" but I'm not a multi-millionaire so this doesn't affect me. "Oh boy, vote for Bush and get a $1.31 tax cut!" Kerry could not do worse than Bush if he at least thinks about the economy occassionally.

"Nothing to vote for in Kerry" meaning you know Bush's positions on issues. Well sure and they scare the shit out of me. That's why anyone - even Kerry - is better than Bush. Heck, I'd vote for a bucket of horse manure over Bush... Just because Bush refuses to admit errors doesn't mean he's strong or a leader, it means he's a stubborn dipshit. A real leader would have the balls to say "Hey, we fucked up in Iraq. Let's fix the problem and bring the boys back home."

Fact is, this vote really is another choice between the lesser of two evils and given that Kerry is the lesser evil. Our Democracy, at this time, is not something to be proud of...

Reasons To Vote For Kerry
He isn't Bush and that does count for a hell of a lot. Plus the thought of siccing John Edwards on the Republicans(*) sounds like an interesting soap opera, good for 4 years. (* - Nothing like a full-blown investigation of abuse of public funds and trust to keep people occupied while the President farts around.)

Department of Homeland (In)Security
Sometimes I wonder which side the DHS is on and maybe having a centralized intelligence community isn't a good thing. Here's why. The DHS issues a warning that says someplace, say BubbaWorld, is a target for terrorists. What's BubbaWorld to do - close up shop, increase security and do body cavity searches? In short, the warning by the DHS is disruptive, which coincidentally is the purpose of terrorism. Arguably the DHS has become a tool for terrorists, a tool that can cause disruption by a phone call or suspicous email or some other trigger. Minimal effort, minimum expense, decent return - that plays into the hands of terrorists. And to add to that, having a centralized intelligence depot makes it easier for the terrorists to manipulate. One good thing about the old system, screwy as it was, it was tough to pull the wool over everybody.

I would hope that if the DHS has enough info to issue credible threat reports than they'd have enough to not only thwart the plans but make some timely arrests or "terminations". Otherwise what's the purpose? Remind us that bad guys are out there? Well, no shit, and terrorists aren't nearly as big a societal problem as say gangs, drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. What's Bush doing about that? No wonder Ridge is talking about resigning.

L.A.'s Getting Another Football Team
Chivas USA! L.A. is becoming the center for real Football - about time.