Saturday, September 30, 2006

Can it really get much worse?

Let's see: Bush has apparently gone completely delusional, still insisting that things are going well in Iraq and Afghanistan and that we are going to "win." No one else in the world believes this, including a host of retired generals and others. One general has even suggested that the way out of Iraq would be through impeachment. All 16 of out intelligence agencies agree that our presence in Iraq is making things worse and creating more and more terrorists. Bush claims they are naive.

Rumsfeld is now arguing that we can't know whether we are creating more terrorists or not because there is no way to count them. I suggest maybe we should weigh them. This is so pathetic a claim that it doesn't even deserve a comment.

Hastert, and others have apparently known for months that Foley was a pedophile targeting teenagers but did nothing about it, allowing him to continue serving on a committee devoted to protecting children.

A majority of Iraqis, as well as a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. Bush says he will never withdraw even if only Laura and Barney (his dog) are the only ones to support him. Does this mean (1) he is just being stubborn, (2) he is just plain stupid, (3) he is insane, (4) he is being given orders by god (or Cheney), or (5) all of the above.

Bob Woodwrd's new book is about to come out, discussing Bush in denial and lying about the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will supposedly be an eye-opener. But remember, those of us who read already know this, and the vast majority of Americans don't read anything more difficult than cereal boxes and tv screens, so it probably won't even get to them. I doubt the Reader's Digest will even do an abridged edition. Nice try Bob, but you should have admitted it much sooner.

As both the House and Senate have passed a bill making torture legitimate and doing away with habeas corpus, to say nothing of retroactively absolving war criminals from their crimes and giving Bush dictatorial powers, this will surely be challenged in court. Thus this is an absolutely definitive moment in American history. Are we going to admit to the world that we have committed war crimes and now absolve those who are guilty of them, and are we going to give up habeas corpus (the most basic feature of our democracy which has served us well for 900 years), or are we going to maintain our basic democratic values? The House and Senate seem to have made it clear where they stand. Will the Supreme Court do the same? I assure you this is no minor matter. Do not panic and give in to irrationl fears. Keep your wits about you. AND VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

Friday, September 29, 2006

Never satisfied - essay

The white men were many and we could not hold our own with them. We were like deer. They were like grizzly bears. We had a small country. Their country was large. We were contented to let things remain as the Great Spirit made them. They were not, and would change the rivers if they did not suit them.
Chief Joseph

Little did Chief Joseph realize that changing the rivers was little more than child's play to the whites that were taking over his territory. They didn't hesitate to create great lakes, eliminate other lakes, move mountains from one place to another, and so on. It seems they would never be satisfied with anything, certainly not with what the Great Spirit had created.

I was stimulated to think about this on a recent automobile trip. Listening to the radio I learned about Popcorn lung disease. Have you ever heard of Popcorn lung disease? Neither had I. It seems that some people who work in popcorn processing facilities (you know, where they create popcorn to be popped at home, etc.), can come down with Popcorn lung disease. It turns out this has nothing to do with the popcorn itself but, rather, with some substance they spray the kernels with so they will have an artificial taste of butter. This led me to consider, why do this? Why just not leave the popcorn alone as the Great Spirit must have intended (or at least I think he/she/it must have)? I guess it is because humans are never satisfied. Think of it. What is it we do not seem to think we can improve on? We create dams and nowadays even artificial reefs. We raise oysters and clams in artificial beds we created and even now raise fish in farms (nature doesn't seem to keep up with our demands). We have selectively bred animals and plants because we were not satisfied with the way they were naturally. And now we even genetically modify them because, apparently, they are just not good enough as they grow naturally. Having eliminated most breeds of turkeys we now depend upon only one or two that can no longer breed without help (have to have that breast meat). Vegetables are no long grown for taste but for shelf life. Virtually everything is artificially flavored (natural flavors being considered inferior). Everything seems to be constantly changed and "improved." Not content with the normal cycle of birth and death we are now cloning sheep and mules and whatever. It would be very easy to go on and on with examples of this. I am not suggesting this is necessarily bad (or good), merely that humans seems to be never satisfied with anything.

This includes our own bodies. As far back as we can go it appears that humans have subjected their bodies to modifications of one kind or another. Tattooing is very old. Ear and nostril piercing likewise. Scarification, foot binding, head binding, tooth excisions, circumcisions, subincisions, and other mutilations of the penis, clitoridectomies, lip stretching, cutting off finger joints, shaving, eyebrow plucking, you name it, somewhere humans are doing it (or did do it at one time or another). Some of these practices, having been abandoned for a time, are now making a comeback. Earrings (for men) which disappeared for years are now common. Tatooing which was more or less the provenience of sailors and a few others, is now commonplace. We see more and more instances of tongue rings, lip rings, nose rings, and even eyebrow rings. Nipples are being pierced along with navels and who knows what else. Professional athletes and other entertainers (except golfers who seem to be ultra-conservative) seem to be setting the trends. Now, with improved technologies and methods, we think nothing of breast enhancements (or the opposite), penis enlargements, nose jobs, liposuctions, lip modifictions, and plastic surgeries of all kinds. Women, especially, are almost always dieting whether they need it or not. In short, humans seem to be never satisfied. Indeed, you might say being never satisfied is a defining charcteristic of the species.

I do not bring this up to condemn it, or to praise it. Merely to wonder about it. This appears to be a strange species-specific phenomenon. No other species has anything like it. So what is it about the human species that makes them never satisfied? Perhaps one of the best examples has to do with methods of killing each other. We have certainly made great strides forward in this area. I guess methods of torture have been improved as well but here there seem to be some limitations in what can be done to each other. In this matter we may actually have regressed a bit since medieval times (those guys were really creative when it came to torture, just visit the British museums).

This business of never being satisfied is a difficult thing. For example, in medicine and production and transportation, and material things like that we have indeed made improvements. So I don't think we can say all dissatisfactions are bad. Automobiles are certainly much better than they were fifty years ago, and the same thing is true of refrigerators and such things. So how are we to decide on such things? Shall we just go ahead and proceed with stem cell research, human cloning, and who knows what else the future may bring? Perhaps humans will eventually produce paradise for themselves. I confess it doesn't look too promising at the moment.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Here or there?

I confess to being more than just a little perplexed by continuing claims that "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." No one seems to question this bit of what I believe is an extremely illogical claim. Are we supposed to believe that the "insurgents" who want us out of their country pronto are going to then follow us home if we leave? Do they have an armada of ships and planes ready to chase after us and invade the U.S.? Well, if not the insurgents, the terrorists. But apparently the terrorists are relatively few, have no nation to support them, relatively little in the way of resources, and would face great difficulties in trying to enter our country. I guess the belief is that if we allow them to kill us there they won't be able to spare any to come and kill us here. Yeah, I guess that makes perfect sense to Bush/Cheney.

I guess you know that as of today we are no longer a democracy but, rather, a totalitarian nation. Both the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This gives Bush the right to interpret the Geneva Convention in any way he sees fit, to approve of any kind of interrogation he believes suitable, and to arrest and detain indefinitely anyone he wants, even American citizens. The Act allows people to be tried without knowledge of what they are charged with or even how the accusations came about. In other words it suspends habeas corpus, the most basic feature of our used-to-be democracy. So congratulations Republicans, you have managed to get what you obviously wanted, a dictatorship run by Dick the Slimy with his dummy president. This is probably unconstitutional but with the Supreme Court in their pocket as well as the House and Senate that shouldn't matter much. I guess I'm not surprised that power-mad Republicans would go for this. But I am outraged that some Democrats supported this absolutely terrible legislation. I think 34 House Democrats voted for it and 12 Senators. It is said they supported it because they do not want to be seen as soft on terror. In other, plainer words, they sold out our Democratic society in order to try to insure their re-election. Real patriots. This is one of the most shameless events I can remember. I hope you will all keep their names in mind for future elections (I don't have the lists at the moment). As far as I can see this Act is exactly the opposite of everything our country is supposed to stand for. History will not look kindly on this travesty but, as Bush has said, who cares about history, we'll all be dead.

Apparently the House voted against using any money for permanent bases in Iraq. I would assume that by now these bases must already exist or be very close to being finished. So what will happen to them? I guess the Iraqis can turn them into Youth Centers. As their puppet government has already said we should maintain some forces there do you think Bush/Cheney will pay any attention to what the House thinks about it?

Things just continue to go swimmingly. If only our 16 different intelligence agencies could get over their naivete.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Fish in a barrel

I have to confess I am beginning to feel guilty about criticizing the Bush/Cheney bunch of loonies. I was brought up to believe you should not "kick people when they are down," and always engage in "fair play," and try to "help the handicapped," "you should not shoot fish in a barrel,"and other what I assume to be American values. But in the case of the Bush/Cheney administration it has become just too easy. Take any subject you wish: the military, the national debt, health care, torture, Katrina, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Israel/Palestine, the Sudan, war crimes, the national debt, diplomacy, the U.N., nation building, Bechuanaland (if it still existed), whatever, and you can be sure the Bush/Cheney administration has screwed it up beyond belief. It is actually unbelievable. And what is more unbelievable is that the Republican House and Senate continue to support these totally incompetent, bumbling, idiotic, stupid, malicious, evil, rotten, miserable, consciousless, lying, profiteering bastards even when they go so far as to try to do away with habeas corpus (the most basic principle of a democratic society).

I have to admit that I believe if we cannot get a democratic House and/or Senate in the coming election the United States is doomed. Never has there been such an abuse of power, such greed, such class warfare, such noncompassion, such lack of empathy, understanding, and respect for human dignity, than now (although, granted, the early 1900's were pretty bad). The day I was born the stock market crashed, the great depression began. I cannot claim to have personally suffered much as I was too young to recognize what was happening and we always seemed to have enough to eat and a roof over our heads. But having heard about it, and read about it, I do not believe the level of outright lying and deceit even approximated what we are experiencing today. And we certainly didn't indulge in war crimes and torture (we were too busy strike-breaking and union-busting). Inevitably basic human rights won out, let's hope that can happen again.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Bedbugs & stuff

Before I get to the problem of bedbugs let me briefly comment on the last couple of days, although I mostly missed them. Let's see, sixteen of our intelligence agencies put out a report that indicated that our illegal, immoral, unnecessary "war" in Iraq has actually increased the problem of terrorism in the world. Bush, of course, immediately responded that this couldn't be true and released the full report (which basically confirmed that indeed it was true). His claim that this was leaked only for political reasons fell on deaf ears because it was, in fact, the conclusions of bipartisan investigations by his own administration into the issue. Bush knows better than his intelligence agencies because, you know, he speaks directly with God.

Condi Rice, our incompetent Secretary of State, took exception to Clinton's tirade on Fox News about the inaction of the Bush Administration with respect to terrorism. She did this by asserting a number of demonstrably false assertions about the Bush response to the warnings prior to 9/11. Negroponte, our czar of intelligence, made some absolutely pathetic remarks about how the report didn't really mean what it said (actually he avoided responding directly by merely asserting that we were more aware and more vigilantly pursuing the terrorists than formerly). The Bush/Cheney people apparently think Americans will believe even the most outrageous lies if repeated often enough. As Jackass Two is the most watched movie in the U.S. at the moment they are probably right.

Rumsfeld, who has brought new meaning to utter incompetence, has been more or less silent lately. Retired Generals are publicly accusing him of his terrible mistakes. Cheney (Dick the Slimy), whose poll ratings are lower than a snake's belly, has all but disappeared except to his profiteering cronies who apparently meet in secret under the various rocks he hides under trying to think of further ways to steal taxpayer money. Man, when you think of Cheney, your have to think of one really evil dude.

But now to the real problem confronting America. Bedbugs. Bedbugs used to be much more common than they have been in recent years. This no doubt has to do with more enlightened standards of cleanliness, the availability of washer-dryers, the more than once a week saturday night baths, and so on. But according to reports I have heard there is now a virtual epidemic of bedbugs in the U.S. They seem to be worse in New York, San Francisco and Chicago than elsewhere, although I gather they are spreading rapidly. Bedbugs are very hard to kill and eliminate once you have them. They have not been linked to spreading diseases but they are most unpleasant, live on blood, and bite frequently anyone unfortunate enough to encounter them. I assure you, you would not want to have them. They are far worse than head or body lice.

Now, how do you explain this sudden epidemic of bedbugs? As we have not had a big problem with them for years here in the U.S., it is probably safe to assume they have come from elsewhere. They have almost certainly come in on planes and ships, from who knows where. As far as I know no European country has admitted to bedbugs (of course it would certainly be in their best interest to lie and not admit to having bedbugs), perhaps they have come from the Middle East. Yes, I bet that is it. They are part of the terrorist organizations that are attacking us. How clever. How despicable. How sneaky. Here we have been worrying all this time about dirty bombs and such and the terrorists have outwitted us again. Bedbugs. Who would have thought it? They are going to drive us crazy with itching and bedbugs. And it is all Bill Clinton's fault. If he had captured or killed Osama bin Laden we wouldn't have to put up with all these bedbugs. But as he made no attempt to get bin Laden, as Bush/Cheney have (just ask Condi Rice), this is the price we are having to pay for his inactivity. Yes, that's it. It's all Clinton's fault. If he had spent more time trying to get bin Laden than he did pursuing that poor innocent virginal Monica Lewinsky (who arrived in Washington with her knee pads and thong underwear) we certainly wouldn't have this problem with bedbugs.

I suggest if you're having trouble with this, read Richard Clark's book on the subject. Richard Clark? What did he know? He didn't speak with God.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Charlie Rangel

No morialekafa on monday night. I will be mourning for the death of sanity in our nation.

I have long admired Charlie Rangel as a Congressman not afraid to speak his mind, criticize when necessary, and pretty much defend a Democratic point of view. Thus I was very surprised when he criticized Hugo Chavez for speaking his mind. I guess what upset me the most was his remark to the effect that "no one can come in here and criticize my president" (or words to that effect). "My president?" Since when is Bush Charlie Rangel's president? Is this not like saying, "the president is a war criminal, but he's our war criminal?" I do not for a moment dispute Rangel's right to say what he wants, but why on earth would he try to defend the indefensible? Bush/Cheney are war criminals, period. There can be no argument here. They lied to attack a country that was not a threat to us, the most basic war crime possible. They have tortured, used illegal weapons, profiteered, indiscriminately killed innocent women and children (as well as innocent men), established illegal secret prisons, and denied even the most basic human rights to prisoners. All of this is well known. It is also well known that for years and years the U.S. has shamelessly exploited third world countries, taking their resources and giving virtually nothing in return. All of this is well documented. It is not a secret. Chavez merely told it like it truly is. So why would someone like Rangel defend it? It pains me deeply to see someone I have admired for so long turn out to have feet of clay (or whatever). I want to cry out, "tell me it ain't so, Charlie, tell me it ain't so).

I guess you must all be aware by now that our spy agencies, all 16 of them, have agreed that our presence in Iraq has increased the problem of terrorism. Bush's response to this is to assert (with no evidence, of course) that what was reported in the news was not the complete report (which is probbly even worse). His other response, which presumbly will come after the 2006 elections, is to order even more troops into Iraq (as he has no troops to spare will he try to instigate a draft?). And if he tries will anyone agree to it, other than the approximately 35% that would support him even if he was caught having sex with a goat on the White House steps (oh, it must just be a fertility ceremony of some kind).

I confess to being "at my wit's end." I simply cannot understand how our country can allow this terrible, unbelievable travesty pretending to be our "government" continue. I do not understand how Bush has the chutzpa to even appear in public. I do not understand how Cheney can be allowed to remain in office. I cannot understand how our Congressmen and Senators can continue to defend policies that are so blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. I guess it all just comes down to greed and the desire for power. Tell me again about "intelligent design."

Saturday, September 23, 2006

What happened to free speech?

The criticism of Chavez came out quick and heavy, and from what I thought were unlikely sources. Nancy Pelosi, for one, was upset by Chavez's frontal attack on Bush, as was Charlie Rangel. I was surprised. I thought we were a country that welcomed and defended free speech. It is not as if Limbaugh and others of his ilk have not been chronically name-calling for years, and continue to do so on a daily basis. Whether Chavez's remarks were true or not is not the issue (although perhaps it ought to be), the issue is his right to say them whether we approve of them or not. Remember. Free speech. The Constitution. All that.

A reader, not pleased with my support of Chavez, suggested that supporting Chavez was not a good way to get Progressives elected. I do not believe I suggested that it was. Apparently for Republicans the only issue is getting elected. As I am not a Republican (heaven forbid that I could fall so low), and if I were trying to get elected (I think I would rather be a used car salesman), I guess I wouldn't comment favorably on Chavez. What I would do is what all Republicans running for office this year will do - lie. After all, what else can they do? They have an absolutely abysmal record on anything you can think of: the "war," the economy, truth, torture, war crimes, Katrina, even terrorism, etc., etc., etc. I might even go so far as to claim to be "compassionate," an attribute conspicuosly absent in our present crop of Republican office holders.

Our Congress is being asked by Bush/Cheney to make torture legitimate and to insure that those who have been engaging in it up to now will not be punished for it (including Bush/Cheney themselves). I do not think this is a good idea. I do not believe laws should be changed retroactively to protect criminals (it is unconstitutional to do so I think). But Bush/Cheney do not let the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is they want to do. Nor do they concern themselves with following our laws. By the standards of U.S. and International law they are obviously criminals several times over. They know it. The world knows it. This is precisely why they are so desperate to get the laws changed and to insure that Republicans continue to control both the House and the Senate. This must not be allowed to happen unless you are prepared to enter the sewers of history.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Another new definition

Not content to have creatively re-defined torture the Republicans have now re-defined compromise. In Republican speak compromise now means giving Bush whatever he wants (even though it violates both U.S. law and constitution as well as the Geneva Convention). This fake "compromise" being touted by McCain is nothing of the sort. Bush got what he wanted. The CIA is not to be constrained by the military code but can go beyond it, prisoners will not be allowed to see all the evidence against them, and so on. McCain, who claims the Geneva Convention has been saved is plain and simply, lying. He obviously will do anything, no matter how despicable, to get the Republican nomination in 2008. The only thing he hasn't done publicly yet is lick Bush's boots. Look for it.

The Republicans have been busy working on immigration reform. For example, they just passed a law making it a crime to tunnel into the U.S. I guess I just don't understand these things - you mean it wasn't against the law before to tunnel under our borders in order to bring in drugs and illegals? Now with this marvelous break-through compromise they say it will be possible to arrest, imprison, interrogate and try terrorists. Like, this wasn't possible before? Where have I been all of these years? They also voted overwhelmingly to build an additional 700 miles of fence to keep out illegals. This will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigrants but it will certainly keep the big corporations going for several years. No doubt they plan to hire cheap illegals to build this marvelous construction.

There was an interesting interview today on Democracy Now with Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia. Why can't we have an Evo Morales or a Hugo Chavez, who, whatever else they may or may not be, do have the interest of their citizens in mind rather than merely the interests of corporations? What a breath of fresh air they bring to politics. If you want to see the future look to South American because that's where it's at.

A drunk is sitting at the bar. He says to the bartender, "statistics show us that the average alligator lays hundreds of eggs."
The bartender says, "yeah, yeah, who cares."
The drunk then says, "and statistics tell us that of those hundreds of eggs only a few actually hatch."
The bartender says, ""yeah, so what?"
The drunk then says, "statistics also show us that of those few that hatch very few actually survive."
The bartender, fed up, says, "yeah, yeah, like who cares what statistics show us?"
The drunk replies, indignant, "hey, I'll have you know if it wasn't for statistics we'd all be up to our ass in alligators."

Sorry. But it strikes me the same thing is true of polls. Somewhere the other day I saw poll results that claimed Bush's ratings had gone back up to 45%. As I cannot see what on earth Bush has done in recent days to raise his poll numbers I have to suspect the polls themselves (and I know the polls can be manipulated every which way). I suspect if we leave it up to the polls we'll all but up to our butts in Bushit. And by the way, watch out for the October surprise.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

A successful compromise?

It is now claimed that Bush and the three rebel Senators, McCain, Warner, and Graham, have reached a successful compromise on the torture bill. I would still like to know how you can compromise on torture. It seems to me that either we respect the Geneva Convention or we don't. So what does this compromise consist of? Are they going to tell us just what procedures are admissible and which are not? Did they actually work out the semantics of torture vs "different interrogation techniques" or whatever euphemism they are employing at the moment? Does the CIA now know positively what they can do and what they cannot do? Do you think after all these years of doing what they damn please they are going to pay any attention to this recent folderol? The CIA has assassinated and tortured for years. They are not going to stop now no matter what compromise was reached. But it does make for good press. What bullshit.

A judge in California has now ruled that Bush's overruling of the Clinton Roadless Act was illegal. It apparently did not consider any environmental rules or laws and is therefore inoperative. Did this deter our temporary governor Risch? Of course not. He said he will go ahead with Idaho's plan anyway. So there you have it. Another case of Republicans simply ignoring the law. If there are laws or rules that Republicans don't like they just ignore them. In the case of Bush they use a "signing statement" that announces they will not accept that particular law. What a great system. You don't like a law. The hell with it. It's the Republican way.

I know I will probably get a lot of flack for this but I cannot tell a lie. Hugo Chavez made an absolutely marvelous speech at the U.N. in which he "told it like it is." I believe everything he said was true. Bush is the devil. The U.S. has tried to dominate the world. We have been exploitive and unfair to other countries. The U.N. has been too much under the control of the U.S. and so on. All true. All too true. If Chavez manages to live much longer he will become a genuine hero. If they manage to kill him he will become a great martyr. The world has finally become completely aware of what has been going on all these years, the U.S. and international corporations ripping off the poor, exploiting every country they could, grabbing the lion's share of the world's resources, and returning mostly nothing to the local populations. This has to change and Chavez is leading the rest of the world in trying to remedy this terrible imbalance. South America is awake! If Chavez has his way the rest of the world will also awake. Unregulated, unfettered, exploitive capitalism will have to give way to a more democratic and equitable system. So hooray for Chavez. Wish him well and good health. Perhaps, just perhaps, justice will ultimately prevail.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Republican ghouls

The House Judiciary Committee voted to oppose Bush's attempt to change the
Geneva Convention. Then the White House intervened and made them vote again. So they rounded up the three members who had not been present at the first vote and, surprise, when they voted the second time, they voted 20 to 19 for Bush. In other words, to put this in the simplest language possible, they voted for TORTURE. And, as TORTURE is a war crime, the also voted to support WAR CRIMES. Can you believe this? In 2006 a majority of our elected Representatives on an important Committee voted to protect war criminals!!! I find this shocking beyond belief. And not only that, Frist and the White House have announced they want torture so badly they will filibuster any attempt to do away with it. They are obviously desperate to spare Bush/Cheney from the gallows. What on earth can these people be thinking? They adore Bush so much they are willing to go with him to prison? How can anyone in their right mind vote for torture when it is already defined as a war crime? How could they vote for torture even if it wasn't? The only word that comes easily to mind is DESPICABLE.

The Washington Blade (I think that is what it is called) has just fired Gannon/Guckert, their fake reporter. I guess he was fired because the new editor decided he had too much baggage. Who cares? The only think interesting about this for me is how is it that after all this time we still have no explanation as to why a known male prostitute was allowed to spend so much time in the White House, even when there was no Press Conference. Where did he go? Who allowed him in or out? Who did he see? What was he doing? Presumably he wasn't just wandering about randomly looking at portraits. Whoever convered this scandal up has to be very highly placed. I would still like to know what the hell this was all about.

roviate v. to smear, slime, malign, denigrate, and attempt to destroy an opponent through the use of innuendo, rumor, slander, outright lies and any other despicable means available. Roviation works more effectively when done in collusion with major media.

This was my original definition of roviate. I remind you of it here because this is part of the Republican strategy for the 2006 elections. They have set aside several millions of dollars to investigate Democrats for the purpose of being able to roviate them. This is what Republicans think of our political system. For them, this is the way it works. As they have nothing but a record of one abysmal failure after another I guess they have no other choice. Enough is enough. Vote Democratic.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Compromising on torture?

As you all must know, Bush/Cheney want Congress to retroactively change the laws that have to do with the Geneva Convention. As the Geneva Convention has not been challenged for more than 50 years by anyone, one wonders why this is a priority for Bush/Cheney. It has to do with trying to absolve the CIA from responsibility for having been torturing all these many years and, more importantly, trying to get Bush/Cheney off the hook for war crimes. So, at the moment Bush/Cheney are pushing Congress to absolve them of responsibility for war crimes, while McCain, Warner, and Graham are trying to stop them by offering a different bill that would mandate staying with the Geneva Convention. With this impasse it is now being suggested there might be a compromise. What I would like to know is how you compromise on torture. That is, will the CIA agree to only torture on tuesdays, thursdays, and saturdays? Or will the definition of torture be changed so that waterboarding is okay but the use of vicious guard dogs is not? Perhaps the obnoxious loud music used 24 hours a day will have to be subject to Congressional approval? Just what is this compromise supposed to consist of? Compromising on torture? Only in the Bush/Cheney administration. What is really upsetting about this nonsense is that both bills, the Bush/Cheney version and the McCain, Warner, Graham version eliminate habeas corpus, the most basic human right that goes back all the way to the Magna Carta. Hey, why should anyone be allowed to challenge their arrest? What kind of democratic procedure is that? Especially in light of the fact that probably some 80 to 90 percent of those now incarcerated (many in secret prisons) are known to be basically innocent?

Let us consider the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, arrested by the CIA and sent to Syria to be tortured (which he was). The Canadian government has now proven beyond any doubt that he was completely innocent of any involvement whatsoever in terrorism. This did not keep the U.S. from illegally detaining him, sending him to Syria where he was tortured, and now trying to claim his case can't be heard because it might be a problem for Canadian/U.S. relations (which is also now known to be completely false). We definitely need to give Bush/Cheney more power to do this.

Let us also consider the case of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq. Watada, who offered to serve in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, because the latter is an illegal "war," is probably going to be court-martialed, apparently not so much because he refused to serve in Iraq, but because he did not act like an officer and a gentleman (he publicaly criticized Bush). This is an interesting case for a couple of reasons. First, it is an issue of free speech which has never before been used in a case of this kind. But more importantly, Watada claims that the Iraq "war" is illegal and for him to serve in it would make him complicit in war crimes. There clearly is written into the Military Code a statement that says any military person who is asked to commit an illegal act should be able to refuse. So this should come down to the basic question as to whether or not the Iraq "war" is legal (which it pretty clearly is not). Now, it would seem to me that if the Iraq "war" is an illegal war, and if the military code says an officer should refuse an illegal order, Watada has to be exonerated. As far as conduct not befitting an officer and a gentleman, does critizing the President constitute a crime (given the fact that a majority of the American Public is now doing the same thing). Personally, I believe Watada is completely in the right here and should be acquitted of any wrongdoing whatsoever. He does not want to be a war criminal. Who can blame him?

But this leads to the more important issue that now faces the American Public. There is no doubt whatsoever that Bush/Cheney and their cohorts are guilty of multiple war crimes. They know it, the world knows it. They are asking the Congress, and by implication the American Public to forgive them for their war crimes by passing retroactive laws to protect them (even though our constitution says retroactive laws have no legality). This is, I believe, an absolutely defining moment in American history. Is the Republican Party (with the aid of some Democrats), acting presumably on behalf of their constituents, going to protect known war criminals? Is our country, that led in the establishmen of the Nuremberg trials, that signed and actively promoted the Geneva Convention, that passed our own laws against war crimes, now going to protect those who are known to be guilty of such crimes? To do this is to thumb our nose at all the rest of the world, to claim that might does indeed make right, to join with Israel and Britain as pariah nations that stand in opposition to all the rest of humanity. Are we really prepared to do this? To protect Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice and the others who have brought about this apparently endless carnage and theft? I certainly hope not.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Let's hear it for torture

Torture, according to Bush/Cheney is good. Without it we can't possibly protect ourselves from terrorists. The CIA has to be given an exception to the Geneva Convention because - well, just because. No country has challenged the Geneva Convention for some 50 plus years, until now. I think this raises interesting questions about the Bush/Cheney motives. Is it the case that they really like torture and want to be able to just go ahead and do it? Yes, I think so. Indeed, I think if you examine their past statements on the subject they seem to be quite proud of it (not only torture but murder as well). Remember Bush's comments once about how it is there are many terrorists who just won't bother us anymore (or some such comment, implying they must have met their fate somewhere, somehow). Aside from the fact that they seem to enjoy torture for its own sake, there is the more important aspect of their position - they are trying to avoid the hangman. They know they are guilty of multiple war crimes. They know if Democrats gain control of either the House or the Senate, or both, they could very well end up not merely impeached but also being tried for war crimes. This is why they are so desperate to get Congress to change the laws retroactively, even though according to our constitution retroactive laws have no force (they are really desperate).

I guess they were (are) so enamoured of American military superiority and power it never occurred to them they could not just break whatever laws they wished. So they went ahead and broke whatever laws they wished and now they may have to pay the price for doing so. I say "may" because it is not at all clear they still won't get away with it (that is what the Republican Congress is for, with the aid of certain Democrats, of course).

If Bush/Cheney succeed in revising the Geneva Convention to their liking, what is to prevent every other country from doing the same. The result of this would be simply to scrap the convention, a step so far backward in time (and morality) as to be disastrous beyond belief. Do you think Bush/Cheney care? Of course not, they want to save their own butts, to hell with the rest of humanity. They have shown no concern whatsoever for humanity up to now - just war, war, war, kill, kill, kill, and keep on doing it presumably forever (it's good for business, and we do have to have that oil).

Of course they don't call it torture. It becomes "alternative interrogation procedures" or other euphemisms. But don't be misled, it's torture they are talking about.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Why not a moat?

Well, I'm back. You perhaps cannot imagine how pleasant it is to escape the news for four days. It was wonderful! I'm certain that important things happened in the last four days, but I don't know anything about them. I don't want to know anything about them. I am happy in my ignorance of the past four days. I am reasonably certain than whatever happened or was said to have happened was basically untrue. I have learned over the past few years that you must simply assume that anything a politician says is a lie, and, of course, the MSM is not even worth watching or reading. So be like me, ignorant and happy (at least temporarily).

The one thing that I am somewhat aware of is the proposal to build ditches around Bagdad. You know that Bagdad is a horribly violent place racked by a (denied) civil war. That is, Sunnis are murdering Shiites, and vice versa, in large numbers. Our troops are also targets probably of both Sunnis and Shiites (as they all rightly want us out of their country). The Kurds are a different problem but perhaps not so much in Bagdad. Now, if you have a problem in the city of Bagdad, a problem that seems to involve mostly residents of that city, how do you go about trying to solve it? Simple, you dig a huge ditch all around the city (some 90 kilometers I read somewhere). Bush, or someone or other suggested that part of this might not be a ditch but, rather, a berm. The point of doing this is to prevent people from entering the city and engaging in violence. But as the violence seems to be being perpetrated mainly by those who already live in the city what is the point of building a huge ditch around the city? I saw somewhere today that the Bush administration now denies they are going to build such a ditch. As I don't believe anything they say I will wait and see.

However, I think it is a terrific idea. But instead of just a mere ditch or berm I think they should build a real honest to goodness moat. You know, like in the days of castles and stuff. A deep ditch filled with water with drawbridges allowing people into and out of the city. Better yet, I suggest they fill the moat with crocodiles. Think of the money and effort that could be saved. Instead of having to handcuff each other and shoot them in the head, they could simply throw them into the moat for the crocodiles. Cheap and efficient. Of course once they exhausted the present inhabitants of the city they would have to let down the drawbridges so they could get some new blood (so to speak).

This ditching idea reminds me of another Republican solution to a problem here at home. Informed that Immigration had discovered a huge underground tunnel for smuggling illegals and narcotics, one Republican asserted, "that's why we need fences." Think about it. I guess in my absence the Republicans voted to add another 700 miles of fencing along our southern borders. Obviously there is no point in doing anything sensible about the problem (like prosecuting businesses that hire illegals). Besides, what huge corporation would miss out on the construction contract for building such a useless white elephant? You have to understand, all this money for the military and such projects as this fence, are not actually meant to do anything to protect us, but, rather, to keep giving our tax dollars to various corporations that in turn finance the Republicans (and unfortunately, Democrats as well). Thus it is we keep on building larger and larger tanks and planes and submarines and bombs and rockets, and utterly useless star wars paraphernalia. This is what is known by anyone with the brains of a clam as the military/industrial/political system (our current form of government).

It's great to be back!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

What is the point?

Morialekafa will not be blogging again until Sunday the 17th. It is just as well because it all seems increasingly pointless. Let us recapitulate:

It is perfectly clear by now that Bush/Cheney and the neocons blatantly lied to start a "war" with Iraq.

It is equally clear that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the U.S., and, in fact, not even to his neighbors.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, nor was there any evidence that Saddam was about to produce any.

There was no connection whatsoever between Saddam and al Quaida.

Saddam had not blocked inspectors from Iraq and, in fact, they had free reign to go anywhere and look anywhere.

The claim that Osama bin Laden and his followers are going to try to establish a Muslim empire from Spain to Indonesia is an idea so far fetched its believers should be institutionalized.

The idea that we are fighting them there in order to keep them from here is also totally without foundation.

Just yesterday Bush claimed "this war was forced on us." How can he say this with a straight face? We all know this was a "war" of choice. We certainly did not have to go to war with Iraq because of 9/11, which they had nothing to do with, and which Bush himself has now admitted.

If this is true, as I fervently believe it is, why is it that Bush/Cheney and company continue to claim otherwise. And what is worse, why are they allowed to get away with it day after day now that we know it is all simply bullshit?

And why is it that fully a third of U.S. citizens still support Bush/Cheney? I can only assume they are brain dead. Certainly they do not read or pay attention to what is going on in front of their eyes and ears. Someone has suggested that all editors of major papers should be fired because of this. If it is true that large numbers of citizens still believe there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and between Saddam and al Quaida, our newspeople should be held accountable.

Given the above does it not seem pointless to continue to try to expose the Bush/Cheney white-collar gangsters for what they are? We all know what happened. We all know they are guilty as hell. Republicans continue to defend them. One can only conclude there are no honorable Republicans in the House or Senate. This simply has to change. Enough is enough. Vote Democratic.

A high-level Israeli officers has now admitted they used illegal phosphorous bombs as well as cluster bombs by the hundreds. He says what they did was insane. It certainly was a war crime. Indeed it was both. Bush/Cheney will no doubt defend them. War criminals stick together.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

They can run, but can they hide?

Idaho politics. We have a temporary governor, Risch, who is going to run again for Lieutenant Governor, rather than for Governor (he is apparently going to wait for the next election cycle to actually run for Governor). During his brief tenure as Governor he managed to get his Republican controlled legislature to pass what passes for "tax reform." His tax reform bill reduces property taxes and increases the Idaho sales tax. As a result of this, starting on October lst, everyone will pay one cent more for sales tax. The actual result of this "reform" is that 60% of the benefits will benefit either business or absentee landowners (like the Gropenfuehrer of California), while only 40% will benefit local homeowners. The Republicans passed this plan even though there was a Democrat plan that was much better and would have returned the savings to those who truly need them (local homeowners). This Democratic plan was not even discussed or considered although polls showed that a majority of Idaho residents preferred it. Republicans just do what they want and to hell with what the people want. Anyway, for the moment this is neither here nor there. Risch is refusing to debate his Democratic opponent, Larry LaRocco. His idea of a debate is to allow him to say his piece, then leave before LaRocco gets to say anything. That is, they would not meet face-to-face. Why do you think he would want to do this? He obviously wants to run but will he really be able to hide? LaRocco ran once before and very nearly won. I think Risch is not very comfortable with his position. It seems to me if he was really smart he'd want LaRocco to go first. But who ever suggested he was smart?

In another important race our former Lieutenant Governor, Clement Leroy "Butch" Otter is giving up his seat in the House of Representative to run for Governor. As he has accomplished virtually nothing as a Representative, and says he is "bored" with it, I guess it is just as well. As he also did next to nothing while he was previously Idaho Lieutenant Governor for several years, one might well wonder why he thinks he should become Governor. As near as I can tell he has no real qualifications other than being a genuine Idaho "good ol' boy." He does have a DUI on his record, and he also twice was fined for violating Idaho water laws. I guess his major claim to fame is that he once won a tight jeans contest in a bar. Anticipating his election to our Governorship he recently married one of his girlfriends. I guess he figured out that his conservative base might not approve of his continuing to live in sin while inhabiting the Governor's mansion. He, too, is doing everything he can to avoid debating his Democratic rival, Brady, who previously ran for Governor and very nearly won. Otter seems to think that the Governorship ought to be his by virtue of his many years of joining as many organizations as possible.

Finally, for the moment, we have a contest for Otter's replacement in the House of Representatives. The Republican candidate is Bill Sali, a true right wing conservative. Sali, I have recently read, still believes there were WMD's in Iraq. As he also believes abortion causes breast cancer I guess this is not too surprising. He opposes abortion, I am told, even in cases of rape and/or incest. He is pathologically homophobic. He has been described in public, even by members of his own party, as an idiot. Apparently most of his financial support comes from outside the state from those who share his ultra-rightist views. Dick, the Slimy, Cheney actually came to Boise to raise funds for him although I gather it was not terribly successful. As Cheney's poll numbers are somewhere around 18% or less, I guess his endorsement is a real winner. Sali's opponent, Larry Grant, is a retired Micron executive, a lawyer, Idaho born and raised, a moderate Democrat, intelligent, informed, personable, willing to listen and compromise if necessary, and, in short, everything Sali is not. Sali, need, I say it, does not want to debate him. There was a report today on Red State Rebels (a blog) that a recent poll indicated Grant was actually ahead. Sali apparently tried to get the papers to suppress this report (I confess I do not know if this is really true).

So what is it with these Republican candidates who do not want to debate? What is it they fear (other than fear itself). They seem to believe that as Idaho is such a red state they will be elected no matter what they do, or fail to do. Could it be that Idaho might actually elect some Democrats this time? I fervently hope so, and you should too. Enough is enough.

Here at Sandhill we are currently under siege. Wild turkeys. A few years back Wild turkeys were introduced (or perhaps reintroduced) to North Idaho. We thought it was a great idea. Still do. Except for the fact that it has proven to be far too successful. At first there were just a few and they were a real novelty. When you occasionally saw some it was with pleasure. Then there were more of them. In the last couple of years they have multiplied. They actually come onto our deck, land on the roof of our house, and even peer into the windows at times. But this year they have completely taken over our garden. It must have been an exceptional year for wild turkeys as they obviously bred most successfully. We have had as many as sixty at a time in our yard. They scratch away the mulch, eat some of the plants, dig holes in which to rest, and poop everywhere. We still love the idea of wild turkeys, we are learning to not be so enchanted with the reality of them. Furthermore, you can't get rid of them. We go out and shoo them away but they leave only begrudgingly and then return. They have no fear of us whatsoever and move away only when you press them so closely they have no choice. And they are unutterably stupid. They will repeatedly try to get through a fence even though they cannot and ignore an open gate nearby. They are dinosaurs. I guess you know that. Think of it. As they are the only surviving dinosaurs it is not hard to understand why the other dinosaurs are extinct. They were just too stupid to survive. Never mind theories about comets crashing into the earth or changing climates or whatever, the dinosaurs disappeared out of their idiocy. You want to know how turkeys have survived? It is because they have domesticated us. I know, you want to believe your ancestors were smart enough to domesticate them. But in the case of turkeys it is quite the other way around. Once they find you they settle down with you and what was once yours becomes theirs. You can't kill them. You have to have a license. The license only allows you to kill one or two a year. They breed as fast as rabbits. It is a lost cause. Even the coyotes can't keep up with them. We now even have to stop and wait for them to cross the county roads, which they do only at their leisure. Turkeys, turkeys everywhere. I guess things could be worse.

Friday, September 08, 2006


I have a hypothetical question for you. Not being a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, you have to excuse my ignorance (but perhaps applaud my curiosity). What would happen if a president of the United States murdered someone and there were multiple witnesses? Let's say it happened on the steps of the White House, the president held a gun to someone's head, pulled the trigger, and shot the person dead, all the while being observed by multiple first hand observers. So could he be arrested for murder? Is there any law or rule that allows for such a president to be exonerated, or at least, allowed to go free pending a hearing or whatever? Or could he just be jailed until such time he was tried for murder? Remember, we are talking about a blatantly obvious cold-blooded murder witnessed by several people where there is no doubt whatsoever about what happened. It would seem to me that such a president could clearly be arrested and charged and even incarcerated while awaiting trial. What do you think?

Now, if you think as I do, that a president caught flagrantly murdering someone ought to be arrested just like any other murderer, what about a president that is known to have murdered thousands of innocent people, including children? Why should he not be arrested and charged with murder, in this case even worse, war crimes? Bush/Cheney are known to have committed multiple war crimes. The fact that they are trying to change the laws retroactively absolving them of responsibility is in itself an admission of guilt. Indeed, the entire world knows they are guilty of war crimes. So why worry about impeachment? Why should they not simply be arrested and charged with crimes everyone knows they committed? They could not, of course, be presumed guilty without a fair trial. So why should they not have a fair trial to determine whether or not the charges of war crimes are valid? Personally, I believe in this particular case impeachment would simply be a waste of time. Either they are guilty of war crimes or they are not. Even if they can succeed in retroactively changing the laws everyone will know they are still guilty. Let them explain in a court of law why they went to "war" in Iraq. Let them explain why they condoned torture, war profiteering, the use of illegal weapons like white phosphorous and cluster bombs, and why innocent civilians, including children, were targeted. I believe these are the kinds of questions that can only be answered by open trials. They cannot be ignored even if our Republican Congress is stupid enough to try to make them retroactively legal. The die is cast. Either these criminals should be held responsible for their murderous acts or they should not. So what do you think?

Thursday, September 07, 2006

We don't torture

We don't torture. That is what Condi and others have been telling us for some time. Nor do we have secret CIA prisons in other countries. Nor do we engage in "renditions." How is it, then, that Bush has now admitted that we have held at least 14 prisoners in secret CIA prisons and, by using "tough methods" have managed to get information from them we would not otherwise have been able to accumulate? This is an incredible admission of guilt. No one seems to care much, as usual. It seems that the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales definition of torture claims that if a prisoner doesn't actually die it can't really be torture (of course some have apparently died but I guess they don't count). So now we know (of course we really knew before) that the Bush/Cheney bunch of war criminals have been lying all along. But that's okay because now we have them at Guantanamo where they can be tried publicly (thus proving how Bush/Cheney have protected us from terrorists all along). Of course Bush still wants them tried in completely illegal courts where they will not hear the evidence against them, hearsay evidence can be used, as well as evidence acquired by torture (sorry, I mean tough methods).

Along with this "positive" development, the army has now come out with a new manual which specifies that certain methods cannot be used (those that have up to now been used). Of course the new rules don't apply to the CIA or non-military entities. Besides, Bush/Cheney want Congress to rescind (or revise, or whatever) the laws that were previously passed to prevent such war crimes, thus exonerating everyone who might have been involved in torture and war crimes up until now (including themselves). I guess they really think their Republican controlled House and Senate will go along with this (which, if recent trends continue, they might). This is so utterly illegal and disgusting it goes far beyond anything even Orwell might have imagined.

They claim that now there are no more prisoners being held in these secret CIA prisons, but the prisons will not be closed (because, of course, they might be needed again). You can never tell when they might actually capture Osama bin Laden. They claim to know where he is (more or less) but can't go there because Pakistan won't let them (Pakistan won't let them, ha, ha, ha). "Although I am about as far from being a conspiracy buff as possible, I don't believe they ever wanted to capture bin Laden. He was a CIA asset in the past and, for all I know, may still be. He has certainly been repeatedly useful to Bush. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he is living happily in Paris or Rome or Athens or Istanbul, getting his share of the poppy harvest and emerging upon request to do his bit for the Republican fascist conspiracy (sorry, this is so unlike me I can't believe I actually might imagine it).

We are going to know before too long now whether the U.S. still has remnants of democracy or whether the fascists have already won. Given the mood of the country, given the negative polls on Bush/Cheney, given the disastrous Iraq "war," given the obscene national debt, given the sorry state of our position in the world, given the problems of our middle class, including the lack of medical insurance, low wages, etc., etc., etc. if Democrats do not get control of the House and/or Senate, you will know that all is lost. Enough is enough (actually, in this case enough is far more than enough). Vote Democratic (except for the Republican-lite Democrats) that want to continue the charade.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006


A well known British anthropologist, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, once suggested that his critics were inhabiting "cloud-cuckoo-land." I have no idea where this might be, or even what it might be, but it does sound to me like it might be an apt description of the present location of Bush/Cheney and the neocons, to say nothing of the rest of the Republican party. Where to begin:

Florida. Katherine Harris has won her Republican primary, garnering a colossal 50% of the vote. Someone suggested she was running against two alligators and a dodo bird (or something like that). Even so, what does this tell you about Florida voters in her district? It suggests to me they don't read, are completely uninformed about what is happening, and just vote Republican no matter what. Harris has run a campaign that even the Keystone cops couldn't have devised, she has made statements so ridiculous that even small children would know better, and she has been abandoned by her own party who asked her not to run. Obviously this is a woman who doesn't take no for an answer. Anyway, better for us liberals as she almost certainly can't win against her Democratic opponent.

Bush gave another one of his hot air, sound and fury, signifying nothing speeches. I of course did not watch but I did see some excerpts. Among other things he confessed to transferring 14 important prisoners from secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo (I guess this must be the secret prisons Condi swore did not exist). Do you think they might have lied to us about this? No, Republicans never lie, they just say things that are blatantly untrue and expect us to believe them.

Bush also wants us to believe that a small minority of extremist fake Muslims (real Muslims would never do such things), with no nation, no army, no navy, no air force, no central command, and very few means, are a threat to establish an Islamofascist (utterly meaningless term) empire stretching all the way from Europe to Timbuktoo or beyond. He equates this threat with that of Hitler and the nazis (this is indeed somewhere in cloud-cuckoo-land).

Bush/Cheney are also doing their best to persuade Congress to rescind the war crimes act thus clearing them of any accountability for their obvious and known war crimes. I am not certain about this but I thought there was a law making it illegal to retroactively change a law to protect criminals. Not that this would matter to the Republican Congress which pays no attention to laws when they don't suit them.

Apparently is not merely Republicans who are inhabiting cloud-cuckoo-land. The Senate, by a vote of 70 to 30 rejected a law making it illegal to use cluster bombs on civilian areas. Some of these votes had to have been cast by Democrats (to their everlasting shame I would hope).

Rumsfeld, ah Rumsfeld. He must have so much dirt on Bush/Cheney they don't dare to fire him. Democrats today tried to get a vote of no confidence on Rummy, but of course it was doomed to fail from the beginning. Even so, it is putting pressure on our incompetent Secretary of Defense and the White House to do something - anything, I guess.

My new mantra is "Don't Panic." I suggest you repeat it ten times, five times a day, while facing east and holding a pork chop. You gotta have faith.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Roviating Fitzgerald

All of the sudden the MSM are bad-mouthing Patrick Fitzgerald. There appears to be no obvious motive for this. Fitzgerald has been very quiet for a long time but it appears that his investigation is still very much ongoing. So why this sudden negative attention by the press? Could it be that word has come down from on high? From that great strategist in the sky, Karl Rove? Could it be that Fitzgerald is getting too close to Cheney? There is no doubt that Cheney was the evil genie behind the outing of Plame. Libby would never have taken on such a task without Cheney's blessing if not directive. This is vintage Rove: attack, smear, slime, make up lies, try to destroy reputations in any way possible. Remember, the Libby trial is set for January. I guess you just can't start too soon roviating. Personally, I can't wait until January (if Fitzgerald can survive that long) now that he has been targeted by Rove and the filthy band of neocons who may someday, if justice exists, end up being tried for treason and multiple war crimes.

Condi Rice, apparently in an attempt to outdo Rumsfeld in basic idiocy, has now compared anti-war critics to people who were opposed to doing anything to stop slavery. This prompted the following from Evan Derkacz: ..."perhaps the most breathtakingly stupid remark ever uttered by a Bush administration official." Surely he is right. But Condi's remarks, along with Rumsfeld's, indicate genuine panic and true desperation. You might say, I guess, they are living lives of loud and obnoxious desperation.

I guess Bush gave another of his absurd speeches today. I never watch as the sound of his voice, coupled with a view of him, makes me physically sick. Besides, why watch or listen when you know he will just prattle on with one lie after another. Have Bush or Cheney ever told the truth about anything? I don't think so.

The Israelis have now trapped a million and some Palestinians in Gaza, which is little more than an outdoor prison. The Palestinians are suffering unbelievably. In the meanwhile Israeli planes and rockets kill a few more every day. As near as I can tell this is little more than genocide, sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. No one seems to care much, certainly not the Bush/Cheney administration who could put a stop to it. As Bush is on record of believing the Jews are going to hell, I guess he figures a few more war crimes won't matter.

Try not to panic, it appears that worse is still to come in the form of an October surprise. How much of a surprise will it be if we all expect it? Stay the course. The course that leads directly to impeachment and worse.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Surprise! Voters are angry

A recent poll, cited somewhere on Buzzflash, indicates that a majority of American voters are angry. Can you imagine? Why would anyone be angry with the way the country is being run? Let's see, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate badly, opium production there has now reached unprecedented levels. The Karzai government, such as it is, is under attack and may collapse. The situation in Iraq is, to put it mildly, an utter disaster and they are in the midst of an unadmitted civil war. The Kurds are now flying their own flag instead of the Iraqi flag and say if they want to separate they will. Israel (and the U.S.) just lost the "war" in Lebanon. Iran continues to just thumb its nose at an increasingly weakened U.S. The national debt is at an all time high (by far). Real wages for American workers have actually decreased under the Bush/Cheney administration. Americans continue to be illegally spied upon. Republicans have given up on any form of an immigration bill and continue with their obsessions on abortion, flag burning, and gay marriage (while we continue on our downward spiral towards third world status). Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al continue their blatant lying about everything. We seem to be no safer now than before. We are now despised by most of the known world. So what is there to be angry about?

Then there is Rumsfeld, otherwise known as "Rummy," a particularly apt description. Rummy has just announced that anyone who does not support his failed "war" is unpatriotic and a Hitler supporter (dissent is no longer accepted in these United States). Beset on all sides with calls for his resignation, insisting on continuing his "war" even though a large majority of U.S. citizens are now on record as not supporting it, he refuses to resign. And of course the idiot-in-chief won't insist on it because it would make him look bad (I guess that must be the reason as I can see no other reason that makes sense). The worst president ever, supporting the worst Secretary of Defense ever. Birds of a feather.

Watch out for a rip-snortin' Rove October surprise. And don't be angry. Be happy, things are going well (just listen to Bush/Cheney).

Saturday, September 02, 2006

"Iraq Report Unsettling"

Apparently now even the Pentagon "gets it." They have issued a report that paints a most dismal picture of the situation in Iraq. They say, among other things, "it could dissolve into a civil war." I con't know what definition of civil war they are employing. The Sunnis are killing Shiites. Shiites are killing Sunnis. The Kurds are killing both if they stand in the way of Kurdish desires for an independent enclave in Iraq (complete with the oil of Kirkuk). In the middle of this are our 140,000 troops who don't seem to know who they are fighting for. One day they are fighting Sunnis and the next day the Shiites. More than three thousand Iraqis a month are being killed, the vast majority the result of this secular violence. If this is not a civil war, pray tell, what is? Bush, of course, continues to insist that it is not a civil war and we must "stay the course." It would be interesting if we had any idea what the "course" was. I guess he still assumes we will stay in Iraq until they are able to defend themselves. It seems to me they are all defending themselves at the moment. And, of course, at the very time he claims we will leave when they can stand up for themselves he continues to build permanent bases and an embassy that is actually a complete city by itself (at a cost of nearly a billion dollars). Bush/Cheney will never leave Iraq as long as there is a barrel of oil or they get kicked out on their butts (which I believe will not be long in coming).

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistand, where we swore we not abandon them once again, we have for all intents and purposes abandoned them. But not to worry, they are doing well, at least in the opium business. Opium production is up 50%, the Taliban are back in spades, and the country is a disaster (just like Iraq). I guess all this proves just how successful the Bush/Cheney plan for the Middle East is working out. The ungrateful Iraqis are not thanking Bush enough for all he has done for them, the Karzai government in Afghanistan is about to come apart, we are now universally hated (along with Israel) across the Middle East. Our nation is on the brink of bankrupty, and damn it, flag burning is not yet illegal, abortions are still occurring, gays still insist on marrying, working people still would like a raise in their wages, and the infernal estate tax still exists. But not to worry, the oil business is booming, the pharmaceutical industry is booming, and the brush on Bush's pig farm is under control (I guess). And oh, one last thought, our country is right on the brink of becoming a Fascist dictatorship (you know, the marriage between corporatism and government - Mussolini can tell you all about it).

So cheers! Global warming has not killed us all yet. There are still a few trees standing. The endangered species act has not yet been completely abandoned, they have not yet actually started drilling in the arctic, and at least one or two salmon made it back to Redfish Lake. Once all those new coal-fired energy plants get going, along with the new nuclear energy plants, things will just be hunky-dory once again. Remember, the absolutely disastrous consequences of all this are just figments of the scientific imagination. If you are having any health problems just put one hand on the TV and one hand on the afflicted part.

Basically, just do as I do, just close your eyes and pretend you don't actually exist. Maybe it will all go away.