Progressive Calendar 12.23.09
From: David Shove (
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:25:02 -0800 (PST)
            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R   12.23.09

1. Alliant vigil     12.23 7am
2. Amy Goodman/CTV   12.23 10am
3. Bigotry/TTT       12.24 11am

4. Eagan peace vigil 12.24 4:30pm
5. Northtown vigil   12.24 5pm

6. Drew Western - Obama style and the looming losses in 2010
7. ed           - Pledge 2012 No vote for Obama
8. SK News - Fat bearded alien to invade US homes late 12.24/early 12.25.

--------1 of 8--------

From: AlliantACTION <alliantaction [at]>
Subject: Alliant vigil 12.23 7am

Join us Wednesday morning, 7-8 am
Now in our 14th year of consecutive Wednesday
morning vigils outside Alliant Techsystems,
7480 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie.
We ask Who Profit$? Who Dies?
directions and lots of info:

--------2 of 8--------

From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at]>
Subject: Amy Goodman/CTV 12.23 10am

St. Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN) viewers:
"Our World In Depth" cablecasts on SPNN Channel 15 on Tuesdays at 5pm,
midnight and Wednesday mornings at 10am, after DemocracyNow!  All
households with basic cable may watch.

Wed, 12/23, 10am
"Amy Goodman: Breaking the Sound Barrier: Part 1 "

Talk by Amy recently given at the University of Minnesota. Amy, as well as
Denis Moynihan, had recently been stopped and interrogated by armed border
guards while crossing into Canada. Amy speaks personally about her parents
and experiences in her youth as well as the national debate on health care
reform. (11/29/09)

--------3 of 8--------

From: Andy Driscoll <andy [at]>

TRUTH TO TELL 11AM DECEMBER 23: aMAZE: Awash in Family Diversity and

"You've Got to Be Carefully Taught." So goes one of the more obscure
songs, but an important lessons in the musical, South Pacific, reminding
us that we are rarely born bigoted; our attitudes, prejudices and biases
are ingested very early by examples set by our extended families,
teachers, authorities - and the media, of course.  How we feel about and
treat others is based on what we've been told to believe about them
through our developing years - especially those who are "different" from
us. Children are too often taught that "The Other" deserves to be shunned
or ridiculed or excluded. It might be the color of The Other. It might be
their size, their shape - or that they like and love very differently from
us. And when the ridicule and shunning and cruelty comes down so early in
life, it leaves lifelong scars and diminishes us as a civilized society.

How to reverse this process? Or prevent it from taking hold? Well, "You've
Got to Be Carefully Taught" can work in reverse as well.  Locally based
groups, Family and Children's Services and aMaze are countering the
tendencies in our culture to prejudge and exclude "The Other" - to help
redefine for parents, teachers and the young what our diverse universe can
auger for a well-rounded society - the many forms "family" can take, and
the values in multicultural pluralism. TTT's ANDY DRISCOLL and LYNNELL
MICKELSEN talk with the people behind the nonprofit groups, aMaze and
Family & Children's Services, along with parents and teachers they've
worked with in bringing the value of diversity, tolerance and acceptance
of The Other to homes and classrooms all across the Twin Cities, Minnesota
and beyond. GUESTS:
 NANCY MICHAEL  Executive Director, aMaze
 LYN MITCHELL  Programs and Outreach Director, aMaze
 VICKI WUNSCH  Director, The Family Project, Family and Children's
 LESLIE WILLIAMS  Teacher, Grades 3 and 4, EXPO Magnet School, St.
 MICHELLE DAMM  Parent, Lake Harriet Community School  Minneapolis

--------4 of 8--------

From: Greg and Sue Skog <family4peace [at]>
Subject: Eagan peace vigil 12.24 4:30pm

PEACE VIGIL EVERY THURSDAY from 4:30-5:30pm on the Northwest corner of
Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan. We have signs and
candles. Say "NO to war!" The weekly vigil is sponsored by: Friends south
of the river speaking out against war.

--------5 of 8--------

From: EKalamboki [at]
Subject: Northtown vigil 12.24 5pm

NORTHTOWN Peace Vigil every Thursday 5-6pm, at the intersection of Co. Hwy
10 and University Ave NE (SE corner across from Denny's), in Blaine.

Communities situated near the Northtown Mall include: Blaine, Mounds View,
New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, Arden Hills, Spring Lake Park,
Fridley, and Coon Rapids.  We'll have extra signs.

For more information people can contact Evangelos Kalambokidis by phone or
email: (763)574-9615, ekalamboki [at]

--------6 of 8--------

Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches,
Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator
by Drew Western
Published on Monday, December 21, 2009 by Huffington Post

As the president's job performance numbers and ratings on his handling of
virtually every domestic issue have fallen below 50 percent, the
Democratic base has become demoralized, and Independents have gone from
his source of strength to his Achilles Heel, it's time to reflect on why.
The conventional wisdom from the White House is those "pesky leftists" -
those bloggers and Vermont Governors and Senators who keep wanting real
health reform, real financial reform, immigration reform not preceded by a
year or two of raids that leave children without parents, and all the
other changes we were supposed to believe in.

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive
voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely
stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people
to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners
seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil,
big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president's leadership
style, combined with the Democratic Congress's penchant for making its
sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes
every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center
of the political spectrum.

What's costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010
isn't a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished
the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning
off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would
not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not
losing both.

What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of
leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure
to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually
anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special
interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and
pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

The problem is not that his record is being distorted. It's that all three
have more than a grain of truth. And I say this not as one of those pesky
"leftists." I say this as someone who has spent much of the last three
years studying what moves voters in the middle, the Undecideds who will
hear whichever side speaks to them with moral clarity.

Leadership, Obama Style

Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear:
deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it
to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a
conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it.

Health care is a paradigm case. When the president went to speak to the
Democrats last week on Capitol Hill, he exhorted them to pass the bill.
According to reports, though, he didn't mention the two issues in the way
of doing that, the efforts of Senators like Ben Nelson to use this as an
opportunity to turn back the clock on abortion by 25 years, and the
efforts of conservative and industry-owned Democrats to eliminate any
competition for the insurance companies that pay their campaign bills. He
simply ignored both controversies and exhorted.

Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel
of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it's
uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion
to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the
nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can't
tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead.

We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty
exhortations on issue after issue. The president has, on more than one
occasion, gone to Wall Street or called in its titans (who have often just
ignored him and failed to show up) to exhort them to be nice to the people
they're foreclosing at record rates, yet he has done virtually nothing for
those people. His key program for preventing foreclosures is helping 4
percent of those "lucky" enough to get into it, not the 75 percent he
promised, and many of the others are having their homes auctioned out from
right under them because of some provisions in the fine print. One in four
homeowners is under water and one in six is in danger of foreclosure. Why
we're giving money to banks instead of two-year loans - using the model
of student loans - to homeowners to pay their mortgages (on which they
don't have to pay interest or principal for two years, while requiring
their banks to renegotiate their interest rates in return for saving the
banks from "toxic assets") is something the average person doesn't
understand. And frankly, I don't understand it, either. I thought I voted
Democratic in the last election.

Same with the credit card companies. Great speech about the fine print.
Then the rates tripled.

The president has exhorted the banks, who are getting zero-interest money,
to give more of it to small businesses. But they have no incentives to do
that. There are too many high-yield, reasonably low risk investments to
make with zero-interest federal loans. I wouldn't mind a few billion to
play around with right now myself, and I can't say I'd start with some guy
who wants to start his own heating and air company, or an existing small
business owner who is hanging on by his fingernails in tough economic
times. I'd put my money in something like emerging markets, or maybe
Canada. (Have you noticed how well Canadian equities are doing lately?) Or
perhaps Chinese wind turbines. (Oh, we're investing there already with
stimulus funds.)

The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn't exhort robber barons to stem
the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1
percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most
powerful men in the United States that they weren't going to rip off the
American people any more, and they stopped backed up their words with
actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high
relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not "gambling in
stocks." This President just doesn't have the stomach to make anyone do
anything they don't want to do (except women to have unwanted babies
because they can't afford an abortion or live in a red state and don't
have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his
most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I
now turn change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I
couldn't stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew
he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided
policy after another. With Obama, I can't stand them because I realize he
doesn't mean what he says - or if he does, he just doesn't have the fire
in his belly to follow through. He can't seem to muster the passion to
fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He'd make a great
queen - his ceremonial addresses are magnificent - but he prefers to fly
Air Force One at 60,000 feet and "stay above the fray."

It's the job of the president to be in the fray. It's his job to lead us
out of it, not to run from it. It's his job to make the tough decisions
and draw lines in the sand. But Obama really doesn't seem to want to get
involved in the contentious decisions. They're so, you know, contentious.
He wants us all to get along. Better to leave the fights to the Democrats
in Congress since they're so good at them. He's like an amateur boxer who
got a coupon for a half day of training with Angelo Dundee after being
inspired by the tapes of Mohammed Ali. He got "float like a butterfly" in
the morning but never made it to "sting like a bee."

Do you think Americans ought to have one choice of health insurance plans
the insurance companies don't control, or don't you? I don't want to hear
that it would sort of, kind of, maybe be your preference, all other things
being equal. Do you think we ought to use health care as a Trojan Horse
for right-wing abortion policies? Say something, for God's sake.

He doesn't need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he
feels something strongly enough not just to talk about it but to act. He's
increasingly appearing to the public, and particularly to swing voters,
like Dukakis without the administrative skill. And although he is likely
to squeak by with a personal victory in 2012 if the economy improves by
then, he may well do so with a Republican Congress. But then I suppose
he'll get the bipartisanship he always wanted.

No Vision, No Message

The second problem relates to the first. The president just doesn't want
to enunciate a progressive vision of where this country should be heading
in the 21st century, particularly a progressive vision of government and
its relation to business. He doesn't want to ruffle what he believes to be
the feathers of the American people, to offer them a coherent, emotionally
resonant, values-driven message - starting with an alternative to Ronald
Reagan's message that government is the problem and not the solution -
and to see if they might actually follow him.

He doesn't want to talk about social issues, even though they predictably
have gotten in the way of health care reform and will do the same on one
issue after another. Abortion? You don't advance a progressive position by
giving a center-right speech at Notre Dame that emphasizes cutting back on
the number of abortions without mentioning that sex education and birth
control might be useful means to that end, mumbling something about a
conscience clause that suggests that pharmacists don't have to fill birth
control prescriptions if it offends their sensibilities, and allowing
states to use health care reform to set back the rights of women and
couples to decide when to start their families based on somebody else's
faith. If you believe that freedom includes the freedom to decide when you
will or won't have a child, say it, say it with moral conviction, and
follow it up with action. Perhaps something as simple as this: "I won't
sign a health bill into law that forces women and couples to have a child
they did not intend and are not ready to parent because of the dictates of
someone else's faith or conscience." You know what? A message of that sort
wins by 25 points nationally, and you can speak it in Southern and win
with evangelical Christians in the deep south if you speak to them
honestly in the language of faith. That shouldn't be hard for a president
who is a religious Christian.

Gays? Virtually all Americans are for repealing don't ask/don't tell
(except for conservatives who haven't yet come to terms with their own
homosexuality - but don't tell them that, or at least don't ask). This
one's a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January
1, and announce that you have serious questions about the
constitutionality of the current policy and won't enforce it until your
Justice Department has had time to study it. Don't keep firing gay Arabic
interpreters. But that would require not just giving the pretty speech on
how we're all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be equal in the
eyes of the law (a phrase he might want to try sometime). It would require
actually doing something that might anger a small percentage of the
population on the right, and that's just too hard for this president to
do. It's one thing to acknowledge and respect the positions of people who
hold different points of view. It's another to capitulate to them.

Immigration? Joe Wilson yells, "You lie." So instead of acting like a man
and going after Wilson on the spot (the man just attacked him in front of
the entire nation in a joint session of Congress), he accepts his apology
the next day, and a day later rewards Wilson for his incivility and
bigotry by tightening the rules so that illegal immigrants can't even buy
insurance themselves on the health care exchange the Democrats are
creating sometime between 2013 and 2025 (depending on how many seats they
lose in the meantime, and hence how long, if ever, it takes for the
exchange to get set up).

Good policy? No. Not only is it inhumane - can you imagine being really
sick or in terrible pain but being too afraid even to go to a clinic
because you might be deported? - but it's a public health hazard for sick
people not to get care and spread their illnesses, a drain on American
taxpayers as illegal immigrants who finally have no choice but to find
their way, when they're incredibly ill, to emergency rooms or public
clinics, and a despicable policy toward their children, many of whom are
American citizens, but who in either case shouldn't have to be sick, in
pain, and without preventive care as their bodies and minds are
developing, no matter where their parents come from.

Is it good politics? No. During the election I tested messages on just
this issue, and a strong progressive message beat the most convincing
anti-immigrant message we could throw at it by 10 points. Two weeks ago, I
tested messages on just this issue as it applied to health care, and that
margin had doubled.

If you just talk sensibly with Americans, they are sensible people. But
ask them one-dimensional polling questions like, "Do you think illegal
immigrants should get health care?" and you'll entirely miss the art of
the possible.

Jobs? Watch for a $25 billion plan that makes good political theatre and
that every economist I know says will move the unemployment rate from 10.0
percent to 9.95 percent. Not enough to save 30 seats in November. And not
enough to save a generation of families from financial ruin and lower
education, higher unemployment, and poorer health for the rest of their -
and their children's - lives.

The problem with the president's strategic team is that they don't
understand the difference between compromising on policy and compromising
on core values. When it comes to policies, listen all you want to the
Stones: "You can't always get what you want" (although it would be nice if
the administration tried sometime). But on issues of principle - like
allowing regressive abortion amendments to be tacked onto a health care
reform bill - get some stones. Make your case to the American people,
make it evocatively, and draw the line in the sand. That's how you earn
people's respect. That's the only thing that will bring Independents back.

And that's where the problem of message comes in. This White House has no
coherent message on anything. The message on health care reform changed
even more frequently than the interest rates on credit cards last Spring,
and turned a 70-30 winning issue into its current 30-50 status with the
public. Last week on the Sunday news shows, I remember watching in
disbelief as Larry Summers smugly told the 15 million Americans out of
work that the recession was definitively over and that all economists
agree. Then Elizabeth Roemer, another of the President's chief economic
advisors, announced on the next show that the recession is definitely not

That's simply inexcusable. The least two members of the economic team can
do before they fan out on the Sunday morning shows is to agree on whether
we're in a recession, how it relates to joblessness, and how to talk about
it sensitively without seeming out of touch. That's the job of the White
House messaging team, which has been AWOL since at least the start of the
health care battle last Spring.

It's the same problem we've seen with messaging the deficit. Are deficits
good - we're supposed to deficit spend our way out of a severe recession,
right? - or bad - they're a drag on the economy and stealing from the
next generation. So which are they? How about telling the American people,
at the very least, when they're good and when they're bad, not flipping
back and forth in the same sentence between deficit spending and deficit

To be honest, I don't know what the president believes on anything, and
I'm not alone among American voters. He introduced his recent job summit
by saying that even in these times, the role of government should be
limited. Really? That was a nicely nuanced reinforcement of the ideology
of limited, ineffective government promulgated by Ronald Reagan and George
W. Bush. Unfortunately, it runs against all the available data and
everything Democrats have stood for since FDR.

Abortion? Who knows. Gays? I suspect intellectually he believes in equal
rights but deep down he thinks they're icky. Something is sure holding him
back from doing the obvious. Immigrants? He probably has an opinion, but
he's not going to waste political capital on them; he sold them out in 15
seconds on health care. Foreclosures? Nice speeches, and I'm sure it
really concerns him when he hears the stories of families firsthand. But
not enough to divert the cash from the lenders to the borrowers. And the
problem is, the average American knows it. Job creation? Would be nice,
and I presume he believes that people who want to work ought to be able to
work. But when 700,000 people were losing their jobs a month in his first
few months of office and over millions have lost their jobs on his watch
(a process, of course, initiated by his predecessor, whose name, to my
knowledge, he has not uttered since entering office), three letters should
have come to mind: W - P - A. President Roosevelt had no legs to stand on,
but he sure had spine.

The Politics of the Lowest Common Denominator

And capping off all of these aspects of the president's leadership style
is his preference for the lowest common denominator. That means you don't
really have to fight, you don't have to take anybody on, you don't take
any risks. You just find what the public is so upset about that even the
Republicans would stipulate to it if forced to (e.g., that excluding
people from health care because they have "pre-existing conditions" is
something we can't continue to tolerate) and build it into whatever plan
the special interests can hammer out around it.

Unfortunately, what Democrats just can't seem to understand is that the
politics of the lowest common denominator is always a losing politics. It
sends a meta-message that you're weak - nothing more, nothing less - and
that's the cross the Democrats have had to bear since they "lost China" 60
years ago. And in fact, it is weak.

Want health care reform? Let Congress work it out, and whatever comes out,
call it a victory. It's telling that when the Senate triumphantly
announced that it had the 60 votes for cloture on Friday, insurance stocks
hit a 52-year peak.

Energy? Okay, if you don't really want to mess with the oil and coal
industries, let the caps slip higher and higher and industry will cut
pollution around the edges. It won't really solve the problem, but it's
the golden mean between the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do,
which is the essence of Obampromise. It also hamstrings you in Copenhagen,
but oh well, they could use a little global warming there this time of
year anyway. Have you noticed it's cold as hell over there?

Financial regulation? The president's all for the good stuff: regulating
derivatives and other fancy financial products no one but the people
making bundles off of them who crashed the economy (and now run it)
understand. Tell bankers the days of wine and roses are over. But if we
have to have half-reform so Goldman Sachs is willing to keep sending its
best and brightest through the revolving door at Treasury, that's okay;
the Dow is up. So jobs are bleak and the average American is enraged that
Wall Street had a bumper year - with record bonuses - as they're losing
their homes. But you know the old adage about a half a loaf.

That's in fact what the health care debate is over. We shouldn't have had
to settle for half a loaf. If the president had simply placed appropriate
blame on the health insurance industry for its pre-existing conditions,
it's cutting off care for breast cancer victims in the middle of
treatment, and its doubling our premiums and co-pays during the Bush
years, he would have harnessed populist anger and pushed this bill through
six months ago, and it would have looked like the change we were told to
believe in. But if you cut backroom deals with every special interest who
is part of the problem and offer the American people no coherent message
while the other side is messaging straight out of the messaging memo
written by Frank Luntz ("government takeover," "a bureaucrat between you
and your doctor"), you can expect half a loaf. And the other half will be
paid for by middle class taxpayers, as in the Senate bill, which includes
provisions like taxing good middle class tax plans like PPOs, which will
disappear as soon as insurance companies and big businesses have the
excuse of the missing tax break. Remind me, when we've just had the
largest transfer of wealth to the upper 1 percent of the country from
working and middle class Americans in a century, why it would be such a
terrible thing instead, as in the House bill, to ask people who make over
a million dollars a year to pony up for the health care of their (and
their friends') housekeepers, instead of taking away health care plans
union workers traded for salary increases?

The president's biggest success has been on the international stage: He's
not George W. Bush, and he's eloquent to boot. He's done a great deal with
that eloquence to speak to Muslims around the world and to make clear to
others in the international community that America is back - mostly. But
that international community is just starting to learn that his eloquence
doesn't always have much behind it.

Am I being too hard on the president? He's certainly done many good
things. But it would be hard to name a single thing President Obama has
done domestically that any other Democrat wouldn't have done if he or she
were president following George W. Bush (e.g., signing the children's
health insurance bill that Congress is about to gut to pay for worse care
for kids under the health insurance exchange, if it ever happens), and
there's a lot he hasn't done that every other Democrat who ran for
president would have done.

Obama, like some many Democrats in Congress, has fallen prey to the
conventional Democratic strategic wisdom: that the way to win the center
is to tack to the center.

But it doesn't work that way.

You want to win the center? Emanate strength. Emanate conviction. Lead
like you know where you're going (and hopefully know what you're talking

People in the center will follow if you speak to their values, address
their ambivalence (because by definition, on a wide range of issues,
they're torn between the right and left), and act on what you believe. FDR
did it. LBJ did it. Reagan did it. Even George W. Bush did it, although I
wish he hadn't.

But you have to believe something.

I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he
doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for
it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a
series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going
to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades,
because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing
right now is "liberalism," and they don't like what they see. I don't,

What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the
wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going
nowhere fast - but getting there by November.

 2009 Huffington Post
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory
University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of The Political
Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

--------7 of 8--------

Pledge 2012 No vote for Obama

Pledge 2012 No vote for Obama

Some of Barack Obama's bad actions:
 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
 record high military budget
 bombing by unmanned drones in Pakistan
 continued Iraq war
 rejection of landmine treaty
 continued torture and coverup of past torture
 support for Honduras coup
 support for Israeli occupation of Palestine
 suppression of Goldstone Gaza war report
 bank bailout
 no prosecution or even investigation of Bush & Co
 reaffirmation of Patriot Act
 for insurance companies & vs single payer
 support for expanded nuclear power

For these, and many other bad actions,

 We the undersigned publicly pledge not to vote for Barack Obama for
 US president in 2012.

 Robert Halfhill
 Amber Garlan
 Tom Cleland
 David Weisberg
 Dave Bicking
 Andy Hamerlinck
 Doug Mann
 Ted Dooley
 Melissa Hill
 Dori Ullman
 Ryan Carey
 Jan McGee
 Bill Oldfather
 Carol Mellom
 Michelle Gross
 Mike Whelan
 Robert Palmer
 Tom Dooley
 Tim Nolan
 Johnny Hazard
 Suzanne Linton
 Michael Cavlan
 David Shove
 [room for YOUR name]

==end of pledge

To sign this pledge, send to shove001 [at] an email from your
standard personal email address, with your name, and the words: No Obama
2012 vote.

The above will be published regularly on the Progressive Calendar, Green
Party lists, etc. Continuing chances for additional people to sign.

 If you need to research any topic raised here, go to eg:
  Dissident Voice
  Common Dreams
 Once you're there, do a search on your topic, eg obama drones

--------8 of 8--------

Fat bearded alien to invade US homes late 12.24/early 12.25.
SK News

Fridley MN - S Klauz is his name and invasion is his game.

"It's a top down operation" S said. "It's amazing how many people leave
their chimneys or skylignts or attic windows undefended. That's why I urge
you to purchase "Roof Invader BeGone" for only 3 payments of 59.95!

"This is the last year I am bringing presents. Wall Street and I have
joined to privatize the whole sleigh/reindeer/giving thing. From now on,
you pay or S makes off with the family silver or anything else of value -
UNLESS you have "Roof Invader BeGone". Some malcontents (terrorists?)
label this a "protection racket." Well, so be it. One man's protection is
another man's racket. It's time S got in on all the goodies of the
free-wheeling CEOs! So, Buy or Cry! December 2010 and it's a whole new
ballgame! Merry Christmas! Ho ho ho!"

S Klauz in an exclusive interview explains he's doing this to afford a
physical finess trainer to come to his way out of the way home. "It's a
crime what he wants for money!" S lamented. "But for years I've wanted to
get rid of this unsightly bowl full of jelly belly."

And then what, we asked.

"Ah, and then Tiny Tim might finally allow me to tiptoe through the tulips
with him! God, you can't imagine how much I've wanted to do that!
Thirty years of rejection by Tiny Tim - 'get out of here you fat creep!'
he says and then he throws stuff at me, god, how humiliating! Well, since
I'm bigger than he is - way bigger - I tiptoed anyway but crushed down
over half the tulips and then just broke down and cried. Well TT didn't
like that any better, he says 'get out of here you disgusting fat
crybaby!' And who can blame him?"

You can help! Send a donation - the larger the better if you know what's
good for you - to S Klauz, PO Box 666, Fridley MN. He's making a list and
checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice, and guess which
one it would pay you to be.

And in a year or two or three, you may see a greatly slimmed down S with
his new buddy, tiptoeing and cartwheeling and limboing through the tulips,
a precision drill team of two, one old, one new, both singing in quavery
watery voices the glorious tiptoe-tulip song.

We at SK News Fridley MN can't wait.


   - David Shove             shove001 [at]
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments

                          vote third party
                           for president
                           for congress
                          now and forever

                           Socialism YES
                           Capitalism NO

 To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg
 --------8 of x--------
 do a find on

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.