By Buz Whelan
The ad hoc Committee to Revise the Bylaws had its organizational meeting on Saturday, November 2. Buz Whelan was elected chairperson to replace June Solla, who had been elected to the board. Dan Glasgow is the new board liaison. The committee received its marching orders from the board and will work to develop a fair, equitable, efficient and secure protocol for absentee voting. When this is accomplished and approved by the board it can be placed before the membership for an up or down vote. The committee also voted unanimously to schedule its meetings for the second Tuesday of each month at 9:30am in the Admin Office conference room. New members are welcome.
On Tuesday, November 12 the committee held its first full work session. The task of devising an absentee ballot protocol was broken down into a number of steps. How to ensure the security of the received ballots and the authenticity of the voter were discussed and a preliminary process was put forward.
Efforts to enact a process for either mail-in voting (in which all votes would be cast that way) and/or absentee balloting (in which only requested votes would be affected) have been put before the membership before, and they have failed. The current board is concerned that some members are being disenfranchised by the system now in place, which requires attendance at the Annual Meeting. Some directors and members feel that the right to participate in the election process is a precious one and should not be denied to members who cannot, for whatever personal reasons, attend the meeting. One complaint in the past has been that the process has not been carefully spelled out. The board and the committee both hope to assuage these concerns by putting forward a complete process, from request to ballot counting. The steps will include who may request an absentee ballot and how they would do that. Included will be the precise form of the physical ballots and envelopes, how they will be validated, how they will be secured and when and where they will be opened and counted. Also included will be the opportunity to write in candidates who have not declared themselves by the time of the mailing of the ballots. This would, of course, include those who make their intention to run ‘from the floor’ known to absentee voters.
It will be difficult to produce a ‘perfect’ system, but the committee hopes to offer for membership vote a carefully considered way to make it possible for those who cannot attend the Annual Meeting to nevertheless participate in the association’s political process. We believe it is the American way.
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia & LONDON, England (FNS) According to U.S. President Barack Obama, the news came out of nowhere. “I thought we were getting along so well. I thought we had a great future together. I didn’t expect this at all.” What the President was talking about was the sudden split between the United Kingdom and the United States. It began with a late night phone call, Thursday, August 29th. As the President answered the phone he heard the voice of the British Prime Minister on the other end. “We have to talk,” said David Cameron, uttering the dreaded phrase that has preceded breakups for generations. Obama admits to feeling a knot in his stomach immediately. “I could tell by his words and his tone of voice that something was terribly wrong. But I kept hoping it wouldn’t be anything final,” said the President. But it wasn’t to be. “I won’t drag this out,” said Cameron, “I owe you that much. I respect you enough to give it to you straight. I’m afraid this isn’t working out.” The President tried desperately to hold on. “We can change,” he said, “We can talk this out. I’m sure we can make it work.” But Cameron was firm. “It’s not about you,” he replied, uttering the phrase first said by Henry VIII to Ann Boleyn. “It’s us. We need time to think. I’m not saying it’s absolutely, finally over. But we need some time. We need some space. I’m sorry.” Trying to hold onto the last shred of his dignity, the teary eyed Obama said he understood. “I suppose I should have seen this coming. I mean, we never talk anymore. And you always seem busy when I try to get together. Let me ask you this: is there someone else?” “No, it isn’t that. There isn’t anyone,” replied the PM. “I mean it’s not like we’re going with anyone. But I think it’s best if we both see other countries.” After insisting that the U.S. would be waiting should the U.K. change its mind the President bid the PM goodbye saying, “We have such great memories together. I’ll always cherish them, whatever you finally decide.”
by Buz Whelan
Saturday, August 17, 2013 is the Annual Meeting. We’ll be deciding on some minor bylaw revisions, mostly to bring the bylaws into congruence with actual current practice, and most importantly we’ll be selecting two board members to serve for three years as directors. Who should we choose? Why?
First, the good news. The most commonly heard complaint at open meetings and on our Facebook page is, “Why aren’t we going after the deadbeats,” or, “Why aren’t we doing more to collect delinquent dues.” The answer, frustrating as it may seem, is that we are. We are doing all that is legally possible to collect all monies owed to the association, including delinquent dues, late fees and fines for other offenses. Absolutely no one is given a pass. Our attorney spends the bulk of the time he works for us on just this matter. So, why then are there still outstanding debts? There are a number of problems, roadblocks if you will. Many of those who owe have abandoned their homes. They have simply walked away, and have very little in the way of assets that can be attached. Further, many have also obtained the protection of court-approved bankruptcy which prohibits us from further collection attempts. And when banks seize properties through the foreclosure process, they often fail to pay dues. To be sure, we go after them, but it is a long process, expensive and difficult because of the many avenues of appeals and delays open to a bank with a staff of attorneys. Frequently, back dues are collected when the property changes hands, when the bank sells to a new owner. In order to transfer the property, all liens must be satisfied and we stand ready to collect. But this is not always the case. So far this year we have collected $92, 000 in back dues, fines and fees.
The most grievous fault of the current board is its total lack of respect for the membership. This fact can be seen in action after action by the board, and it not only leaves the membership completely out of the loop in decision-making, it is costly – wasteful, actually – as well. Following are examples of this.
During the Summer of 2012 the association purchased new software called TOPS that was intended to be a complete, integrated control system for all our finances and records. Among the capabilities of this software was a website that would be more comprehensive and responsive than our then-current one. We already had a webmaster, Bob Leon, and he was doing a pretty good job. Bowing to the desires of the General Manager, Bob was ordered to close the website while two employees were tasked with learning the format and operational requirements of the new website supplied with the new software. What was wrong with this decision? Well, I’m an experienced helicopter pilot, military trained and combat experienced. If you wanted me to fly a new bird, it might take me 10 to 25 hours to familiarize myself with the controls, the cockpit layout and the flight characteristics. But it would take a non-pilot hundreds of hours. As an experienced webmaster it might have taken Mr. Leon a month or two to learn the characteristics of the new website. But the two employees selected, with much more limited experience, have not gotten the new website to be fully operational one full year later. This, despite the fact that one employee was upgraded from part-time to full-time at considerable expense to the association. Mr. Leon was doing the work as a volunteer, for free.
We have three members that I know of that have experience as editors of newspapers; Denise Wilson, Lola Lauri and me, Buz Whelan. From 2004 to 2012 one or the other of us was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper. We had one absolute requirement: that we would be free from board interference in bringing the news to the members of the association, whether that news was happy or sad, flattering to the board or not. We also insisted that we had a right to publish an editorial and letters to the editor. All of that was taken away at the July 2012 Monthly Open Meeting. The General Manager was given authority over the Emerald News, and in conscience, Lola and I were forced to resign.
I was far from a perfect board president. But transparency was my watchword, whether I was comfortable with what that exposed to the membership or not. Everyone in the association had a right to criticize me, employee, management or the board as a whole, through published letters to the editor. I held two Executive Sessions (closed meetings) in my two years. This board has held as many as 3 in a single month and rarely fewer than 2 per month.
In the past year, real estate decisions have been made without any input from the Real Estate Committee. Maintenance decisions have been made without input from the Maintenance Committee. And structural changes with major financial ramifications have been made without any input from the Finance and Planning Committee. This is against both the spirit and letter of our bylaws.
Now we approach the time of the Annual Meeting and you will hear speeches touting the successes of the board. Listen to them with the skeptical ear of the seasoned observer rather than the wide-eyed optimism of the uninformed.
Who Should I Vote For?
You should vote for the candidates who you believe will best serve your interests. What those interests are will vary with the member. There are five candidates running for two open positions on the board. Each open position is for three years. There are two current directors running for re-election: Vice President Millie Bishop and Director Margaret Fitzgerald. There are three other candidates who would serve for the first time: Sherri Ornitz, Connie Simpson and June Solla. Each has made her case in the July issue of the Emerald News and at the August 3rd session of Meet the Candidates. We cannot go over everything covered in those two venues, but we can summarize. If you like the way the board has operated in the last year you must return Ms. Bishop to the board. She has been instrumental in virtually all the decisions referred to above. Contrariwise, if you are unhappy with many or all of the board’s actions, Margaret Fitzgerald, who has been a dissenting voice, should be your choice. The choice between the three other candidates is more difficult. I have served on one committee or another with all of them. None would be a bad choice. Each has worked diligently for you. But here we (Lola Lauri and I) have decided to endorse Connie Simpson. She approached us, sat down for an extended interview and gave us, in the main, the answers we were looking for. It is more the congruency of our principles than anything that makes us choose Ms. Simpson. She is in favor of returning control of our communications, the Emerald News and the website www.elainc.org, to the control of members rather than employees. She believes members have a right to have their voice heard via letters published in the Emerald News. And as a member of multiple committees, most prominently Finance & Planning, she is a strong supporter of the committee system.
So that’s our take on the upcoming meeting and election. We hope to see you there.
Emerald Lakes will be holding its annual Meet the Candidates on Saturday, August 3rd, 2013 at 9:30 am in the Community Center. Some notices, and emails mistakenly reported that it will begin at 9:oo. This meeting is your chance to hear what the candidates have to say about our community and what they want to do if elected.
The Board is still discussing the format of this meeting, trying to decide if members will have a chance to ask questions of the candidates directly or if the questions will only come from the elections committee.
- June 22, 2013 Board of Directors Monthly Open Meeting (emeraldlakesfreepress.com)
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia (FNS) House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner wept openly following a press conference called by House Democrats to draw attention to the U.S. improving economic outlook. “I can’t stand it,” the speaker was overheard saying to associates, “We were so close. Everything was crappola, perfect for us. And that damn asshole Romney blew it. What are we going to do now? The Dow is at an all-time high. Consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is dropping like a rock. If this keeps up there’ll be no bad news to run on. Talk about bad luck.”
Spotting the reporters nearby, Boehner press aide Mike Rafone excitedly explained that what the speaker meant was that the economy only looks good. There is danger lurking in the numbers. “People see these numbers and they begin to believe Obama knows what he’s doing. They start to think his policies are working. Next thing they’ll want to raise taxes. “Raise taxes on the rey-ich. Raise taxes on the rey-ich.” They sound like Gomer hollering at Barney. “Citizen arrey-est. Citizens arrey-est.”
According to RNC Chairperson Dunce Primus, “We need distraction. We can’t let Americans focus on the economy and employment. We need investigations and hearings, things like that. Drag out the Benghazi thing. Blow up the IRS focus on Tea Party groups. The main thing is to make Obama look bad and make Hillary unelectable for 2016. If we can’t get the economy to tank, this stuff is next best.
Returning to Boehner, the speaker lamented, “We’re the party of God. We’re the Christian right, for God’s sake. We’re a prayerful group and I pray for a downturn nightly, that we Republicans might prevail in the mid-term elections. But day after day we get more and more good economic news. Sometimes I wonder just whose side God is on.”
by Buz Whelan
The arguments on gun ownership and whether there should be new limits placed seem to be producing no movement on either side. Gun proponents, led by the NRA, resist any change in the status quo. The most extreme gun control advocates would allow only hunting weapons, controlled and licensed. And the arguments are beginning to appear to be irrelevant. Red state senators and congressmen and women know they cannot vote for any meaningful gun law and not expect a primary challenge. In most densely populated states where hunters are a small minority, gun laws are already strict by NRA standards. Realizing the futility of debate, I am nevertheless presenting my own view of the firearm landscape. What follows are my thoughts on the subject developed from a little research. I’ve divided this piece into three parts for easy digestion.
Part I: The Second Amendment
“A well established Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems direct enough, does it not? But throughout the life of our republic, we have disagreed on its precise meaning. Some feel it guarantees unrestricted gun ownership, while others point to the opening phrase. A careful reading of the entire Constitution reveals a certain economy of words. The entire purpose statement, called the Preamble, consists of only 51 words. Why, then, did the framers include the words “A well established Militia” in the statement? Why not just write, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and leave it at that? Why mention “Militia” at all?
There were two important Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment during the 19th century. In the first, US v Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” This was reiterated in Presser v Illinois (1886) with the court stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” These decisions state clearly that individual states and, by extension, such municipalities as New York City, Chicago, Washington, et. al., may impose whatever restrictions on gun ownership that they may deem necessary and prudent.
In a later case, the court ruled on the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law, passed in response to public outrage over the carnage being wrecked by ‘Tommy guns’ (automatic weapons), authorized excise taxes to be placed on certain types of weapons (e.g., automatic weapons, parts for same, sawed-off shotguns), ordered the registration of these weapons, and forbid their transfer across state lines without special permit. In the case of US v Miller (1939), the court upheld the law, but did so in conjunction with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants the power to congress “To raise and support armies” and further, “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The court seemed to be indicating that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment was tied to having an available militia, not non-affiliated personal ownership.
In its most recent ruling the court upheld the right of the individual in a narrow five to four decision. In the case of “District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)”, the majority ruled that the individual had a right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. A complete ban on handguns and a requirement that guns in the home be disassembled or trigger-locked by the District was thus declared unconstitutional. The majority stated that the initial phrasing about militia stated a purpose but was not a limiting phrase. Writing a dissent, Justice Stevens examined historical evidence and concluded that the amendment protects militia-related interests.
So, where are we now? The decisions indicate that individuals have a federal right to possess firearms, but that lower governments may impose reasonable limitations and restrictions on that right, and that ordering the registration of guns is constitutional.
Part II: Why I Need an Assault Rifle with Extended Ammunition Magazines
For me, at least, the silliest argument for assault rifles and magazines that hold more than ten rounds is protection from the United States government. Not only is oppression of the general population by our own government unlikely in the extreme, should such a thing ever come to pass, resistance by the people would be utterly futile. The idea that a ragtag bunch of civilians could in any way hamper a military operation is as realistic as Ralphie holding off Black Bart and his gang with a Red Ryder air rifle.
When I returned from combat in Viet Nam my first assignment was as company commander of an infantry training unit in Fort Polk, Louisiana. Upwards of 90% of our graduating trainees would be going directly to the combat arena. All of us cadre, drill sergeants and officers, took our training responsibilities seriously. Nevertheless, we often found amusement in the ineptness of the trainees. And these were folks who already had 8 weeks of basic training before we saw them. It would take 9 weeks of intensive training with us, then a period of adjustment with their combat unit before they were competent soldiers. Civilians with Bushmasters? Ridiculous.
In warning against the possibility of a government takeover, examples such as China, Russia and Nazi Germany are often cited. But both the Russian and Chinese revolutions were essentially civil wars. In Russia, the Bolsheviks battled the Czarists, and both armies were heavily armed. In China it was the communists under Mao Tse-tung against the nationalists under Chang Kai-shek. Again, both armies were heavily armed. In neither case did an existing government suddenly make war on its citizens. The German example is even more ludicrous. Hitler was appointed chancellor by President von Hindenburg after the Nazis elected the most delegates to the Reichstag. There was no war against civilians. And if you watch newsreels from the era you will see huge crowds deliriously cheering their Fuhrer.
Here’s a last example. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the U.S. military and its allies faced Saddam Hussein’s ‘elite’ Republican Guard staffed by battle-tested veterans of the 8 year Iran-Iraq War. They lasted fewer than 100 hours against the coalition forces. Again, I point out the absurdity of civilians facing down the American military.
And finally, let me point out the most obvious fact: the federal government is already in control. There is no imaginable reason for them to war on their own people.
Part III: Making the Perfect the Enemy of the Good
There are no perfect solutions to the problem of gun violence in America. There is no law proposed or extant that would have prevented all the terrible mass murders we have experienced or that would absolutely preclude the possibility that another will occur. But we also know this: doing nothing will not improve the odds. And yet that seems to be the argument that so many proponents of unrestricted gun ownership advance. To any suggested measure that would provide some increased restriction on the type of weapons available or place some limits on who may own guns, they say, “That wouldn’t stop all gun violence; that wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora or Columbine.” Here, we’ll break down some of the suggested remedies and the arguments for and against them.
Proposal: That all sales and transfers of weapons be subject to a background check on the recipient.
The counter argument goes that ‘criminals will still get guns; only legitimate buyers will be hampered.’ And it is true that some, even many, criminals will find ways to obtain guns. It’s also true that legitimate buyers may have to expend some extra effort obtain guns, but is this really too much to ask? But will all criminals have the same ease of obtaining weapons that they have today? Certainly, mobsters will find a way. But are mobsters the problem? The massacres of the last generation have not been done by career criminals. They have been perpetrated by disaffected individuals with little or no criminal backgrounds. Petty criminals, the type that hold up gas stations and liquor stores, do not have the connections that the ‘made guy’ has. If background checks were universal, it would make it more difficult for anyone with a criminal record or a history of psychiatric problems to obtain a weapon. Not impossible; just more difficult. And for the kid who just wants a gun because it thinks it would be ‘cool,’ the increased difficulty would often be enough to discourage him.
Proposal: That assault weapons and magazines holding more than 8 rounds be declared illegal.
‘There are already more than a million assault rifles in private hands. Further, an experienced shooter can change a magazine in seconds, so limiting the capacity would have little, if any effect. Banning the weapons and magazines would only affect legitimate sportsmen.’ But what ‘legitimate sportsman’ needs an assault rifle? These weapons will fire a round with every trigger pull. They can fire at a rate of over 100 rounds per minute. The one time when a shooter is vulnerable is when they are changing magazines. If this must be done every 8 shots there will be more and sooner opportunities to stop the shooter, either by return fire, tackling the shooter, or for victims to run to safety. A ‘sportsman’ who needs more than 8 rapidly-delivered shots to fell his prey is not much of a sportsman. And as far as the number of weapons already in private hands, the same argument was made against restricting the sale of Tommy Guns, those fully automatic weapons favored by gangsters. But the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. It took years to make a difference, but how many Tommy Guns are around today?
There’s one more argument that must be examined. Over and over I hear gun advocates say that Chicago has the strictest gun laws, but the highest gun violence rate. But the problem with the Chicago gun ordinances is the Indiana gun laws, just as the problem with New York City regulations is the lack of Virginia gun regulations. As long as individuals can game the system by simply crossing state lines, the big cities will continue to have the greatest gun crime rates. And loosely-regulated but sparsely populated states like Wyoming will be used as examples of how more guns per capita equal less crime. It’s a false statistic, but it isn’t going away.
In Summation I should make clear that I am not against all gun ownership. I believe hunters have a right to their shotguns and hunting rifles and private citizens have a right to firearms for their own defense. But we must have some sane regulations to reduce the number of gun deaths and the ferocity of individual events such as Aurora or Newtown. If we ban rapid-firing assault rifles and magazines over 8 or 10 rounds it will take a generation or more for their numbers to be significantly reduced, just as it did with Tommy guns. But it will be a start. If we make all weapons transactions subject to background checks and registration it will reduce the number of guns going into the wrong hands and aid law enforcement in solving murders. That alone may have a deterring effect. We do it with cars. I can’t transfer my car to my wife without going through DMV. Why should guns be different? Has our government ever gone house to house to seize anything? If we do all this we still won’t eliminate all gun crime. People who shouldn’t, will still get guns and guns, and magazines that are banned will still find their way into criminal hands. But people still murder, steal and speed on the highways. Would it make any sense to drop laws against those things as well?
WASHINGTON, District of Columbia (FNS) The Republican-dominated Conservative Political Action Conspiracy, or CPAC (pronounced see-pack) held its annual jamboree here March 14 – 16. All the usual suspects were there in a festival of denial and resentment. The theme of the gathering, while not explicitly stated, was that the nation’s electorate misspoke last November, electing that horrible liberal, socialist, communist tree hugger Obama almost by mistake. Over and over, speakers who sounded like they slept through the Presidential campaign, railed and ranted that failed candidate Mitt Romney simply wasn’t conservative enough, that veering even further to the right would have pulled in all those left-leaning voters. But the real head-scratcher came on the second day.
Led by such intellectual luminaries as half-Governor Sarah Palin, Texas Governor Rick “Ooops” Perry, chief NRA crazy Wayne LaPierre and world-class self-promoter Donald Trump, the science hating group doubled down on its paleo-positions regarding modern thought.
The CPAC’s dogmata include the belief that homosexuality and lesbianism are curable lifestyle choices that can be reversed by prayer and will power. There was never a Big Bang, as that theory describes the sudden destabilization of a singularity. Rather, the great Everything began with a call for luminosity by a deity (“Let there be light”). The Earth, generally believed by scientists to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, is really only a little over 6,000 years old. This means dinosaurs and humans coexisted at one time, a sort of Flintstones vision of early Earth. Evolution? Don’t be ridiculous. How could humans and all other species be the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution if the world is only 6,000 years old? Besides, the Bible says that the first man was made from dust, and the first woman was made from one of his ribs. You know, “From dust thou art; to dust thou shalt return.” Which, of course, begs the question, “Why don’t dead women return to being ribs?”
Speaker after speaker also charged that global warming, the gradual but inexorable and measurable trend toward higher and higher average global temperatures, is not caused by human activity, does not really exist at all, and is, in fact, nothing more than a giant conspiracy by the world’s leading scientists for some sinister but unspecified purpose. It is a card-carrying member of this conservative bunch that recently claimed that the bodies of raped women automatically shut down the possibility of pregnancy.
Second day speaker Sarah Palin received an enormous standing ovation when she pulled out her Big Gulp cup, an apparent homage to sugar and a poke in the eye to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “Trying to cut down on obesity and diabetes, Mr. Mayor?” she seemed to be saying, “Well, take that!” She then went on to speak on the rights of the unborn, presenting the opinion that life begins at Last Call.
But wait; there’s more.
There was the Donald. This conspiracy-crazy model-marrying wingnut offered a new plank for the science-denying platform that forms the bedrock of conservative wisdom. “Don’t let anyone fool you,” he ranted, “the world is not round. It is flat. If it were round, stuff would roll all around, wouldn’t it,” shouted the Trumpster, “Here’s a challenge: put a ball on the ground. Does it roll or does it stay where you put it? It stays, of course, because the world is flat. But Obama doesn’t want you to know that.” Wild applause arose from the exhilarated assembly. And by acclimation, the world was declared flat. Who knew?
NEW YORK, New York (FNS) At a hastily called news conference in the Trump Tower media room a visibly agitated Donald Trump promised assembled reporters, “This is huge. This is absolutely tremendous. It’s very, very big. I have new information on President Obama’s real birth location. Absolute, irrefutable proof that he is not American and was not born in Hawaii. I have a witness that will prove this beyond any doubt. Here she is. I’ll let her tell you what she told me. Tell them, dear, tell them what you told me.”
At this point an incredibly thin woman, about 5’9”, with pale skin, tangled brown hair and bad teeth stepped up to the podium. She appeared nervous. “Well, this here is what I know. I was living in Chicago in 1998, and I wasn’t doing so well so I went to this mission place where I could get some food. There was this big room set up like a church, sort of, with a lot of chairs and a reverend who introduced this nice looking black fella. Turned out to be Barack Obama. Called hisself Barry Obama then. He talked to us real good about how we could get jobs and make things better. He was real nice. Then he said something about being born on a Thursday in Hawaii. I guess ‘cause it was Thursday that day, it reminded him. Anyways that’s what I think he said, but I was way in the back. But Mr. Trump says that’s real important. So, that’s about it.”
Trump returned to the podium at this point, elbowing the woman aside. ‘You heard it,” he trumpeted. “From the witness herself. Thursday she said. But August 4, 1961, Obama’s published birthday, was a Tuesday in Honolulu. So, he couldn’t have been born there. Where was it Thursday? I checked with an astronomer, an educated expert and professor at a community college, and he told me that the only place August 4, 1961 was a Thursday was on Mars. Period. Now we know. Obama was not even born on this planet. He’ll have to resign now.” The Donald then spent the last ½ of the conference touting the new season of “Celebrity Apprentice,” which he promises will be the “most tremendous, fantastic, exciting and important ‘Apprentice’ ever. This is going to be huge.”
Web Surfer Complains: You Can’t Google Google
BOURBON CREEK, Kentucky (FNS) Web surfer Peter Owt is annoyed because he has been unable to Google the search engine ‘Google.’ “All I get,” whines Owt, “is the search page and icon blinking “what are you looking for?” at me. “I’m looking for information about Google, that’s what I’m looking for. It’s frustrating. What are they trying to hide?” The angry seeker says this isn’t the first time something like this has happened to him. “A while ago I tried to friend ‘Facebook.’ All I got was stuff about how many friends I could connect with. Advertising stuff, know what I mean? Seems a little ironic, doesn’t it? I mean, you can’t friend ‘Facebook.’ You can only friend other people and organizations. What’s so special about ‘Facebook’ they can’t be friended?” Owt said it reminded him of when he tried to throw away a trash can years ago. “I put out this old dented metal can, empty, along with some brand new filled plastic cans. They left it. So, I put a sign on it that said ‘trash.’ Didn’t work. Changed the sign to ‘this can is trash.’ Still didn’t work. Even when I made the sign say, “This is trash, please take it,” they ignored the can. Eventually I gave up and put a sign on it that said, ‘This can is for sale. Inquire within for price.’ It was gone the next day.”
NRA Offers Compromise to White House
SPENT ROUND, Texas (FNS) NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre says he is ready to bend over for Obama. “We’re going to make an unprecedented concession,” the blustery gasbag said. “We are proposing that anyone involved in a mass killing, anyone at all who kills children and even adults, should not be allowed by law to own an assault rifle in the future. I think it’s obvious now who it is that wants to save our kids.”
Cable Network F/X Announces Brand New Show
FILTHY RICH HILLS, California (FNS) In keeping with the entertainment industry’s most powerful dictum (“if it works, drive it into the ground”) cable broadcaster F/X Network today announce a new series promising to break absolutely no new ground whatsoever. The series, titled “Lincoln Unchained at the Homeland Abby,” will star David Spade, Gary Coleman, Betty White and Kirstie Alley. The producers also promise gobs of guest stars and cameos from ‘80s and ‘90s shows, as well as movie actors you recognize but can’t name. No further details were available.
By Buz Whelan
Much was made of the Obama campaign’s ‘ground game’ by analysts in the months leading up to election day. The vaunted machine was supposed to be a difference maker, yet Republicans paid little heed to the David Plouffe-designed system. On November 6th, they paid the price for that insouciance.
CHICAGO, Illinois (FNS) The Obama campaign, though not the President himself, is demanding a recount of the election results. Top advisors were stunned by what they judged as the closeness of the final tally and have so far refused to believe the totals. Particularly excised are the two Davids, top advisors Axelrod and Plouffe. Said Axelrod, “I can’t believe this guy got 206 electoral votes. I mean this is a party that believes life begins at last call. I’m very disappointed. I figured he might get a hundred votes, but I expected Goldwater numbers.” Strategist David Plouffe was equally surprised. “I know the polls showed it was going to be a close election, but those were from Read the rest of this entry