Dear Caroline,

We've never met, so I hope you don't find this letter too presumptuous or inappropriate. As its contents involve the public's business, I am sending this to you via the public on the Internet. I knew your brother John. He was a great guy, and I know he would've had a ball during this thrilling and historic election year. We all miss him dearly.

Barack Obama selected you to head up his search for a vice presidential candidate. It appears we may be just days (hours?) away from learning who that choice will be.

The media is reporting that Senator Obama has narrowed his alternatives to three men: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine. They're all decent fellows, but they are far from the core of what the Obama campaign has been about: Change. Real change. Out with the old. And don't invade countries that pose no threat to us.

Senators Biden and Bayh voted for that invasion and that war, the war Barack ran against, the war Barack reminded us was the big difference between him and Senator Clinton because she voted for the war and he spoke out against it while running for Senate (a brave and bold thing to do back in 2002).

For Obama to place either of these senators on the ticket would be a huge blow to the millions that chose him in the primaries over Hillary. He will undercut one of the strongest advantages he has over the Hundred-Year War senator, Mr. McCain. By anointing a VP who did what McCain did in throwing us into this war, Mr. Obama will lose the moral high ground in the debates.

As for Governor Kaine of Virginia, his big problem is, well, Obama's big problem -- who is he? The toughest thing Barack has had to overcome -- and it will continue to be his biggest obstacle -- is that too many of the voters simply don't know him well enough to vote for him. The fact that Obama is new to the scene is both one of his most attractive qualities AND his biggest drawback. Too many Americans, who on the surface seem to like Barack Obama, just don't feel comfortable voting for someone who hasn't been on the national scene very long. It's a comfort level thing, and it may be just what keeps Obama from winning in November ("I'd rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don't know").

What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we've known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.

That person, Caroline, is you.

I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: "OBAMA-KENNEDY."

Caroline, I know that nominating yourself is the furthest idea from your mind and not consistent with who you are, but there would be some poetic justice to such an action. Just think, eight years after the last head of a vice presidential search team looked far and wide for a VP -- and then picked himself (a move topped only by his hubris to then lead the country to near ruin while in office) -- along comes Caroline Kennedy to return the favor with far different results, a vice president who helps restore America to its goodness and greatness.

Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl.

The nation has, remarkably (considering our fascination with celebrity), left you alone and let you live your life in peace. (It's like, long ago, we all collectively agreed that, with her father tragically gone, a man who died because he wanted to serve his country, we would look out for her, we would wish for her to be happy and well, and we would have her back. But we would let her be.)

Now, I am breaking this unwritten code and asking you to come forward and help us in our hour of need. So many families are hurting, losing their homes, going bankrupt with health care bills, seeing their public schools in shambles and living with this war without end. This is a historic year for women, from Hillary's candidacy to the numerous women running for the House and Senate. This is the year that a woman should be on the Democratic ticket. This is the year that both names on that ticket should be people OUTSIDE the party machine. This is the year millions of independents and, yes, millions of Republicans are looking for something new and fresh and bold (and you are the Kennedy Republicans would vote for!).

This is the moment, Caroline. Seize it! And Barack, if you're reading this, you probably know that she is far too humble and decent to nominate herself. So step up and surprise us again. Step up and be different than every politician we have witnessed in our lifetime. Keep the passion burning amongst the young people and others who have been energized by your unexpected, unpredicted, against-all-odds candidacy that has ignited and inspired a nation. Do it for all those reasons. Make Caroline Kennedy your VP. "Obama-Kennedy." Wow, does that sound so cool.

Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."

Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Click here to join Mike's mailing list.

===
 
Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

In Manchester, U.K. there's a rather sad little monument. It's a bronze statue of man sitting on a bench eating an apple. That man was Alan Turing. Among other achievements, he is considered the father of modern computer science. He was a mathematical genius who was influential in breaking German codes during World War II. So, why a monument to him eating an apple?

Alan Turing was also homosexual during a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain. According to Wikipedia, (In 1952) "He was given the choice between imprisonment and probation, conditional on his undergoing hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. In order to avoid going to jail, he accepted the estrogen hormone injections, which lasted for a year, with side effects including gynecomastia (breast enlargement). His conviction led to a removal of his security clearance and prevented him from continuing consultancy for GCHQ on cryptographic matters."

 "On 8 June 1954, his cleaner found him dead; the previous day, he had died of cyanide poisoning, apparently from a cyanide-laced apple he left half-eaten beside his bed."

So that is why the sad little monument was unveiled in Manchester in 2001. I was reminded of this when reading this article today, headlined below. It only took fifty years to get this far.

A revolution in the boardroom: Why it pays to be gay

Homosexuals are being courted by employers – from spooks to the city

I think we should erect another monument of a man sitting beside Alan Turing on the bench. It would be of a man with two faces, one eye, no brain, and holding a bible. I'd call it "The True Sin".

Vale Alan Turing.  You'll be remembered long after your accusers.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/95372/the_plot_against_liberal_america/?page=entire

The Plot Against Liberal America

By Thomas Frank, The New Statesman. Posted August 18, 2008.

The most cherished dream of conservative Washington is that liberalism can somehow be defeated, finally and irreversibly, in the way that armies are beaten and pests are exterminated. Electoral victories by Republicans are just part of the story. The larger vision is of a future in which liberalism is physically barred from the control room -- of an "end of history" in which taxes and onerous regulation will never be allowed to threaten the fortunes private individuals make for themselves. This is the longing behind the former White House aide Karl Rove's talk of "permanent majority" and, 20 years previously, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's declaration to the Republican convention that it's "the job of all revolutions to make permanent their gains."

When I first moved to contemplate this peculiar utopian vision, I was struck by its apparent futility. What I did not understand was that beating liberal ideas was not the goal. The Washington conservatives aim to make liberalism irrelevant not by debating, but by erasing it. Building a majority coalition has always been a part of the program, and conservatives have enjoyed remarkable success at it for more than 30 years. But winning elections was not a bid for permanence by itself. It was only a means.

The end was capturing the state, and using it to destroy liberalism as a practical alternative. The pattern was set by Margaret Thatcher, who used state power of the heaviest-handed sort to implant permanently the anti-state ideology.

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul," she said, echoing Stalin. In the 34 years before she became prime minister, Britain rode a see-saw of nationalization, privatization and renationalization; Thatcher set out to end the game for good. Her plan for privatising council housing was designed not only to enthrone the market, but to encourage an ownership mentality and "change the soul" of an entire class of voters. When she sold off nationally owned industries, she took steps to ensure that workers received shares at below-market rates, leading hopefully to the same soul transformation. Her brutal suppression of the miners' strike in 1984 showed what now awaited those who resisted the new order. As a Business Week reporter summarized it in 1987: "She sees her mission as nothing less than eradicating Labour Party socialism as a political alternative."

In their own pursuit of the free-market utopia, America's right-wingers did not have as far to travel as their British cousins, and they have never needed to use their state power so ruthlessly. But the pattern is the same: scatter the left's constituencies, hack open the liberal state and reward friendly businesses with the loot.

Grover Norquist, one of the most influential conservatives in Washington and the "field marshal of the Bush plan," according to the Nation magazine, has been most blunt about using the power of the state "to crush the structures of the left." He has outlined the plan countless times in countless venues: the liberal movement is supported by a number of "pillars," each of which can be toppled by conservatives when in power. Among Norquist's suggestions has been the undermining of defense lawyers -- who in the US give millions of dollars to liberal causes -- with measures "potentially costing [them] billions of dollars of lost income." Conservatives could also "crush labour unions as a political entity" by forcing unions to get annual written approval from every member before spending union funds on political activities. His coup de grace is that the Democratic Party in its entirety would become "a dead man walking" with the privatization of social security.

Much of this program has already been accomplished, if not on the precise terms Norquist suggested. The shimmering dream of privatizing social security, though, remains the great unreachable right-wing prize, and the right persists in the campaign, regardless of the measure's unpopularity or the number of political careers it costs. President Bush announced privatisation to be his top priority on the day after his re-election in 2004, although he had not emphasized this issue during the campaign. He proceeded to chase it deep into the land of political unpopularity, a region from which he never really returned.

He did this because the potential rewards of privatizing social security justify any political cost. At one stroke, it would both de-fund the operations of government and utterly reconfigure the way Americans interact with the state. It would be irreversible, too; the "transition costs" in any scheme to convert social security are so vast that no country can consider incurring them twice. Once the deal has been done and the trillions of dollars that pass through social security have been diverted from the US Treasury to stocks in private companies, the effects would be locked in for good. First, there would be an immediate flood of money into Wall Street; second, there would be an equivalent flow of money out of government accounts, immediately propelling the federal deficit up into the stratosphere and de-funding a huge part of the federal activity.

Business elites

The overall effect for the nation's politics would be to elevate for ever the rationale of the financial markets over such vague liberalisms as "the common good" and "the public interest." The practical results of such a titanic redirection of the state are easy to predict, given the persistent political demands of Wall Street: low wage growth, even weaker labour organisations, a free hand for management in downsizing, in polluting, and so on.

The longing for permanent victory over liberalism is not unique to the west. In country after country, business elites have come up with ingenious ways to limit the public's political choices. One of the most effective of these has been massive public debt. Naomi Klein has pointed out, in case after case, that the burden of debt has forced democratic countries to accept a laissez-faire system that they find deeply distasteful. Regardless of who borrowed the money, these debts must be repaid -- and repaying them, in turn, means that a nation must agree to restructure its economy the way bankers bid: by deregulating, privatizing and cutting spending.

Republicans have ridden to power again and again promising balanced budgets -- government debt was "mortgaging our future," Ronald Reagan admonished in his inaugural address -- but once in office they proceed, with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, to inflate the federal deficit to levels far beyond those reached by their supposedly open-handed liberal rivals. The formal justification is one of the all-time great hoaxes. By cutting taxes, it is said, you will unleash such economic growth that federal revenues will actually increase, so all the additional government spending will be paid for.

Even the theory's proponents don't really believe it. David Stockman, the libertarian budget director of the first Reagan administration, did the maths in 1980 and realised it would not rescue the government; it would wreck the government. This is the point where most people would walk away. Instead, Stockman decided it had medicinal value. He realized that with their government brought to the brink of fiscal collapse, the liberals would either have to acquiesce in the reconfiguration of the state or else see the country destroyed. Stockman was candid about this: the left would "have to dismantle [the government's] bloated, wasteful, and unjust spending enterprises -- or risk national ruin."

This is government-by-sabotage: deficits were a way to smash a liberal state. The Reagan deficits did precisely this. When Reagan took over in 1981, he inherited an annual deficit of $59bn and a national debt of $914bn; by the time he and his successor George Bush had finished their work, they had quintupled the deficit and pumped the debt up to more than $3trn. Bill Clinton called the deficit "Stockman's Revenge" -- and it dominated all other topics within his administration's economic teams. With the chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan himself speaking of "financial catastrophe" unless steps were taken to control Reagan's deficit, Clinton was soon a convert. He got tough with the federal workforce.

So-called virtues

George W Bush proceeded to plunge the budget into deficit again. Indeed, after seeing how the Reagan deficit had forced Clinton's hand, it would have been foolish for a conservative not to spend his way back into the hole as rapidly as possible. "It's perfectly fine for them to waste money," says Robert Reich, a former labour secretary to Bill Clinton, summarizing the conservative viewpoint. "If the public thinks government is wasteful, that's fine. That reduces public faith in government, which is precisely what the Republicans want."

In 1964, the political theorist James Burnham diagnosed liberalism as "the ideology of western suicide." What Burnham meant by this was that liberalism's so-called virtues -- its openness and its insistence on equal rights for everyone -- made it vulnerable to any party that refuses to play by the rules. The "suicide" that all of this was meant to describe was liberalism's inevitable destruction at the hands of communism, a movement in whose ranks Burnham had once marched himself. But his theory seems more accurately to describe the stratagems of its fans on the American right. And the correct term for the disasters that have disabled the liberal state is not suicide, but vandalism. Loot the Treasury, dynamite the dam, take a crowbar to the monument and throw a wrench into the gears. Slam the locomotive into reverse, toss something heavy on the throttle, and jump for it.

Mainstream American political commentary customarily assumes that the two political parties do whatever they do as mirror images of each other; that if one is guilty of some misstep, the other is equally culpable. But there is no symmetry. Liberalism, as we know it, arose out of a compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests. It depends on the efficient functioning of certain organs of the state; it does not call for all-out war on private industry.

Conservatism, on the other hand, speaks not of compromise, but of removing its adversaries from the field altogether. While no one dreams of sawing off those branches of the state that protect conservatism's constituents -- the military, the police, legal privileges granted to corporations -- conservatives openly fantasize about doing away with the bits of "big government" that serve liberal ends. While de-funding the left is the north star of the conservative project, there is no comparable campaign to "de-fund the right"; indeed, it would be difficult to imagine one.

"Over the past 30 years, American politics has become more money-centered at exactly the same time that American society has grown more unequal," the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have written. The resources and organizational heft of the well-off and hyper-conservative have exploded. But the organizational resources of middle-income Americans ... have atrophied. The resulting inequality has greatly benefited the Republican Party while drawing it closer to its most affluent and extreme supporters."

In this sense, conservative Washington is a botch that keeps on working, constructing an imbalance that will tilt our politics rightward for years, a plutocracy that will stand, regardless of who wins the next few elections. And as American inequality widens, the clout of money will only grow more powerful.

As I write this, the lobbyist-fuelled conservative boom of the past ten years is being supplanted by a distinct conservative bust: like the real-estate speculators who are dumping properties all over the country, conservative senators and representatives are heading for the revolving door in record numbers.

Plutocracy

The Democrats who have taken their place are an improvement, certainly, but for the party's more entrepreneurial leaders electoral success in 2006 was merely an opportunity to accelerate their own courtship of Washington's lobbyists, think-tanks and pressure groups staked out on K Street. Democratic leaders have proved themselves the Republicans' equals in circumvention of campaign finance laws.

Throwing the rascals out is no longer enough. The problem is structural; it is inscribed on the map; it glows from the illuminated logos on the contractors' office buildings; it is built into the systems of governance themselves. A friend of mine summarized this concisely as we were lunching in one of those restaurants where the suits and the soldiers get together. Sweeping his hand so as to take in our fellow diners and all the contractors' offices beyond, he said, "So you think all of this is just going to go away if Obama gets in?" This whole economy, all these profits?

He's right, of course; maybe even righter than he realized. It would be nice if electing Democrats was all that was required to resuscitate the America that the right flattened, but it will take far more than that. A century ago, an epidemic of public theft persisted, despite a long string of reformers in the White House, Republicans and Democrats, each promising to clean the place up. Nothing worked, and for this simple reason: democracy cannot work when wealth is distributed as lopsidedly as theirs was-and as ours is. The inevitable consequence of plutocracy, then and now, is bought government.

See more stories tagged with: the wrecking crew

Thomas Frank is the author of "The Wrecking Crew."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sex-drugs-and-regrets-ndash-the-battle-for-the-christian-vote-900651.html

Sex, drugs and regrets – the battle for the Christian vote

By David Usborne in New York
Monday, 18 August 2008

Barack Obama and John McCain drew stark contrasts between themselves at a Christian faith forum in California, acquiescing when asked to delve publicly into their souls and their past sins while straining to reach out to conservative, born-again voters.

The event, watched live by about 2,800 people on site as well as by cable television viewers across the country, was held late on Saturday on the sprawling campus of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest with the candidates each submitting to hour-long, question-and-answer sessions from its pastor, the Rev Rick Warren. It was widely seen as the kick-off to the final 10-week sprint for the White House.

It also served as a prelude to the three formal presidential debates before the 4 November election and was the first time the candidates met in person since securing their nominations. Even though their time on the stage together lasted less than a minute, it was long enough for Mr Obama to draw his Republican opponent into a close hug.

The questions to each man were identical and took them into territories of religious faith, personal philosophy and morality as well as taxation, foreign policy, education and welfare reform. When asked about the worst mistakes they had made in their lives, Mr McCain recalled the disintegration of his first marriage and the Democrat reflected on his lapses into alcohol and drug abuse as a teenager. While Mr McCain quickly won applause from the crowd with crisp answers designed to reinforce his Christian conservative credentials, Mr Obama, looking rested and relaxed after a week's holiday in Hawaii, took a little longer with more meandering answers but eventually earned a standing ovation also.

On several issues, the divide between them was clear. On abortion, Mr McCain did not hesitate when asked when an unborn child should be accorded human rights. At the moment of conception, he said. The Illinois senator, who is pro-choice, said it was "above my pay grade" to answer that question. But he repeated his support for abortion rights with some limits for late-term abortion unless the mother's health is at risk.

They took different paths on gay marriage, with Mr Obama voicing opposition to a ballot initiative before voters in California to declare same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Mr McCain, an Episcopalian who attends a Baptist church, supports the proposed amendment. Neither voiced support for same-sex marriage as such, but his rival said he backs civil unions for gays and lesbians ensuring them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Both men face challenges with Christian conservatives, who account for as much as a quarter of the American electorate. The group was important in delivering the White House to George Bush twice. Mr Obama continues to fight internet rumours that he is, or was at some point, a Muslim. At the same time, he must overcome the stains left by his former membership of the Trinity United Church in Chicago while it was under the leadership of the Rev Jeremiah Wright. The Arizona senator, on the other hand, has long faced an uphill climb convincing some Christian conservatives he is really on their side, partly because of past moderate views on immigration. Nonetheless, a recent CNN opinion poll suggests that on election day, Mr McCain is assured the support of 68 per cent of these voters compared to just 24 per cent for Mr Obama.

With the race between them still tight – the Democrat challenger clings to a lead of about 3 points – the meeting at the mega-church opens the gates to the last phase of this presidential election season, which has already run for 18 months, consumed about $1bn (£500m) in campaign spending and captured the imagination of much of the world.

History has been made and will be whatever happens in November. Mr McCain, soon to turn 72, hopes to become the oldest president at the time of his first election. Mr Obama is running to be the country's first black leader after defeating Hillary Clinton in the primary season, who was vying to be the first female president.

The roller-coaster ride may soon become more thrilling still. The Democratic Party convention begins one week from today in Denver, leaving Mr Obama only a few days to announce his choice of running mate. Mr McCain will have to do the same in short order, as his party's convention, in St Paul, Minnesota, follows directly afterwards.

"We are now entering one of the most intense political periods that we have ever seen," commented Rick Davis, Mr McCain's campaign manager. "We are jamming in a lot of major events, the selection of each candidate's vice-president, their national conventions, the debates and election day."

Guessing Mr Obama's choice for running mate or when he might reveal it remained a fool's game. The senator was planning campaign appearances in several battleground states this week, including Florida. Yesterday he dropped into Nevada for talks with T Boone Pickens, the Texas oil tycoon who has launched a campaign to push wind energy as the answer to reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.

What the candidates said

*What was your greatest moral failure?

Obama: Well, in my own life, I'd break it up into two stages. I had a difficult youth. My father wasn't in the house. I've written about this. There were times when I experimented with drugs. I drank, you know, in my teenage years, and I traced this to a certain selfish necessary on my part. I was so obsessed with me and the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. The process for me of growing up was to recognise that it's not about me.

McCain: My greatest moral failing – and I have been a very imperfect person – is the failure of my first marriage. It's my greatest moral failure. America's greatest moral failure has been, throughout our existence, perhaps, we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self-interest, although we've been the best at it of anybody in the world.

*Who are the three wisest people in your life?

Obama: I don't think I'd restrict myself to three people. There are people like Sam Nunn, a democrat, or Dick Lugar, a Republican, who I listened to on domestic policy. I've got friends ranging from Ted Kennedy to Tom Colbert who don't necessarily agree on a lot of things but who both, I think, have a sincere desire to see this country improve.

McCain: First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history – who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq. One of the great leaders. Meg Whiteman, the CEO of e-Bay. Twelve years ago, there were five employees, today there are one and a half million people that make a living off [e-Bay] in America [and] in the world.

*Does evil exist/ What do we about it?

Obama: Evil does exist. We see evil in Darfur, on the streets of our cities and in parents who have viciously abused their children. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that we are not going to be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task. We need humility in how we approach the issue. A lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront it.

McCain: We defeat it. If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice and I know how. No one should be allowed to take thousands of American – innocent American – lives. Of course evil must be defeated. We are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century – radical Islamic extremists. Our troops will come home with honour and victory and not in defeat.

All too rarely, Australian airline attendants make an effort to make the in-flight 'safety lecture' and their other announcements a bit more entertaining. Here are some real examples that have been heard or reported:

On an Air NZ Flight with a very 'senior' flight attendant crew, the Pilot said, 'Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning down the cabin lights This is for your comfort and to enhance the appearance of your flight attendants.'

On landing the hostess said, 'Please be sure to take all your belongings. If you're going to leave anything, please make sure it's something we'd like to have.'

'There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4 ways to leave the aircraft.'

As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Auckland, a lone Voice came over the loudspeaker: 'Whoa, big fella. WHOA!'

From a Qantas employee: 'Welcome aboard Qantas Flight X to Y to operate your seat belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seat belt; and, if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public un-supervised'

'In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child traveling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are traveling with more than one small child, pick your favorite.

'Weather at our destination is 32 degrees with some broken clouds, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Qantas Airlines.'

'Your seat cushions can be used for flotation; and in the event of an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments.'

Heard on Qantas Airlines just after a very hard landing in Hobart.  The flight attendant came on the intercom and said, 'That was quite bump and I know what you are all thinking. I'm here to tell you it wasn't the airline's fault, it wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the flight attendant's fault... it was the asphalt!'

Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing: 'We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal.'

An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the passengers exited, smile, and give them a 'Thanks for flying United. 'He said that, in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment. Finally everyone had got off except for an old lady walking with a cane. She said, 'Sonny, mind if I ask you a question?' 'Why no Ma'am,' said the pilot. 'What is it?' The little old lady said, 'Did we land or were we shot down?'

After a real crusher of a landing in Sydney, the Flight Attendant came on with, 'Ladies and Gentlemen, please remain in your seats until Captain Crash and the Crew have brought the aircraft to a screeching halt against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we'll open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal.'

Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement: 'We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today. And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of Qantas.'

A plane was taking off from Mascot Airport. After it reached a comfortable cruising altitude, the captain made an announcement over the intercom, 'Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. Welcome to Flight Number XYZ, non-stop from Sydney to Auckland. The weather ahead is good and, therefore, we should have smooth and uneventful flight. Now sit back and relax - ARGHHH! OH, MY GOD!' Silence followed and after a few minutes, the captain came back on the intercom and said, 'Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so sorry if I scared you earlier, but, while I was talking, the flight attendant brought me a cup of coffee and spilled the hot coffee in my lap.  You should see the front of my pants!' A passenger in Economy said, 'That's nothing. He should see the back of mine!'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/firefox-hack-attack-warning/2008/08/17/1218911441873.html

Firefox hack attack warning

Several security holes have been discovered in Firefox and other software from Mozilla.

The Thunderbird e-mail program and the Seamonkey program suite have also been affected.

Users should update their software as soon as possible once patches become available, recommends the German Federal Agency for Security in Information Technology (BSI) in Bonn.

The warning applies to Firefox versions prior to 2.0.0.16 and 3.0.1 as well as to Seamonkey. In the latter case, any version prior to 1.1.11 is vulnerable to hacker attacks.

Those who do not receive automated updates can download them manually at http://www.mozilla.com/firefox or http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases.

No update is available as yet for Thunderbird, which is affected in all versions prior to 2.0.0.16.

DPA

It is important for men to remember that, as women grow older, it becomes harder for them to maintain the same quality of housekeeping as when they were younger. When you notice this, try not to yell at them. Some are oversensitive, and there's nothing worse than an oversensitive woman.

My name is Jeff. Let me relate how I handled the situation with my wife, Susie.

Since I retired several years ago, it has become necessary for Susie to get a full-time job along with her part-time job, both for extra income and for the health benefits that we needed.

Shortly after she started working, I noticed she was beginning to show her age. I usually get home from the golf club about the same time she gets home from work.

Although she knows how hungry I am, she almost always says she has to rest for half an hour or so before she starts dinner. I don't yell at her. Instead, I tell her to take her time and just wake me when she gets dinner on the table. I generally have lunch in the Men's Grill at the club so eating out is not reasonable. I'm ready for some home-cooked grub when I hit that door.

She used to do the dishes as soon as we finished eating. But now it's not unusual for them to sit on the table for several hours after dinner. I do what I can by diplomatically reminding her several times each evening that they won't clean themselves. I know she really appreciates this, as it does seem to motivate her to get them done before she goes to bed.

Another symptom of aging is complaining, I think. For example she will say that it is difficult for her to find time to pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour. But, boys, we take 'em for better or worse, so I just smile and offer encouragement. I tell her to stretch it out over two or even three days. That way she won't have to rush so much. I also remind her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn't hurt her any (if you know what I mean). I like to think tact is one of my strong points.

When doing simple jobs, she seems to think she needs more rest periods. She had to take a break when she was only half finished mowing the yard. I try not to make a scene. I'm a fair man. I tell her to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of freshly squeezed lemonade and just sit for a while. And, as long as she is making one for herself, she may as well make one for me too.

I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I support Susie. I'm not saying that showing this much consideration is easy. Many men will find it difficult. Some will find it impossible! Nobody knows better than I do how frustrating women get as they get older.

However, guys, even if you just use a little more tact and less criticism of your aging wife because of this article, I will consider that writing it was well worthwhile. After all, we are put on this earth to help each other.

Jeff died suddenly on March 1 of a perforated rectum. The police report says he was found with a Calloway extra long 50-inch Big Bertha Driver II golf club jammed up his rear end, with barely 5 inches of grip showing and a sledge hammer laying nearby.

His wife Susie was arrested and charged with murder. The all-woman jury took only 15 minutes to find her Not Guilty, accepting her defense that Jeff somehow, without looking, accidentally sat down on his golf club.

===
 
Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy

http://news.smh.com.au/world/obama-and-mccain-put-religious-credentials-on-line-in-forum-20080817-3wtc.html

Obama and McCain put religious credentials on line in forum

The religious souls of US presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain go under scrutiny Saturday when the two field questions from one of the country's most famous evangelical preachers.

At a pivotal moment of their increasingly nasty presidential race, the Democratic and Republican rivals are due to take part in "A Civil Forum on the Presidency" at the huge Saddleback Church of charismatic preacher Rick Warren -- a rare move in a White House race where forums and debates are usually mediated by prominent media figures.

"What I'm trying to do is stake out what I call the common ground for the common good," Warren told Fox News on Friday.

"I think there are a lot of Americans who are disaffected by both the left and the right, whether it's the secular left or the religious left or whether it's the secular right or religious right."

Warren, who has sold millions of copies of his book "The Purpose Driven Life" and is a prominent HIV/AIDS activist and missionary, leads a congregation of more than 20,000 in the Lake Forest, California megachurch, and has sought to bridge the divide between conservative evangelicals and more liberal Americans.

"This is a critical time for our nation and the American people deserve to hear both candidates speak from the heart -- without interruption -- in a civil and thoughtful format absent the partisan 'gotcha' questions that typically produce heat instead of light," Warren said earlier in a statement.

As their White House battle grows rougher, the two senators will appear at the church Saturday together for the first time since they effectively secured their party nominations.

But that will only come after being quizzed separately by Warren.

Obama is due to field an hour of questions first, and McCain then gets his turn, but without having first heard how his Democratic rival answered.

Only then will the two meet together on stage.

The forum, which is expected to get blanket cable news coverage and be streamed live on the Internet, will serve to underline the prominent role of religious faith in the US political scene.

McCain will be looking to forge links with the powerful "religious right" movement of conservative evangelicals with whom he has endured a testy relationship.

Obama is confident in talking about his Christian faith -- more so than many other Democratic politicians -- though has been dogged by inaccurate, Internet-spread rumours that he is a closet Muslim.

The forum heralds a crucial period in the presidential race, with both candidates expected to soon name their vice presidential running mates, ahead of their party nominating conventions, the Democrats on August 25-28 in Denver, Colorado, and the Republicans on September 1-4 in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota.

While their comments on moral principles and personal spirituality Saturday will be closely parsed, the stumbling US economy remains at the center of the fight between Obama and McCain.

"The economy is the one issue that continues as the dominant voter concern," said Michael Dimock, associate director of research at the Pew Research Center.

McCain will be coming into the forum with more than a week on the campaign trail alone behind him, as Obama has been relaxing with his family on holiday in his native Hawaii.

Their campaigns have meanwhile been building up their war chests for the ten weeks before the November 4 election.

McCain set the stage Friday for an advertising blitz against Obama by raking in a monthly fundraising record of 27 million US dollars in July, aides said.

His total was however dwarfed by Obama's monthly fundraising figure, which was released Saturday and showed 51 million US dollars piled up in July.

Obama is also celebrating after recruiting the two millionth donor to his campaign, evidence of an unprecedented grass roots movement that his team hopes will help carry him to victory in November.