Post election syndrome

I haven't blogged for the past couple of days because I am dealing with post-election syndrome. That is, shock, first of all, as I hoped the democrats would win I didn't think they could win both the House and the Senate. So, hooray! Then there was the awe. We actually won! And Rumsfeld was fired (pretty obviously despite the objections from Cheney). So has Bush finally come to his senses? Of course not, the powers that be have decided once again that daddy's friends should come and try to bail him out of his latest mess. While this may prove difficult to do there would seem to be little alternative at the moment. We must wait to see how successful they will be this time (it's going to be far more difficult than bailing him out of a couple of business failures, his military record, an apparent abortion, and who knows what all else).

I have also been puzzling over some of my critical comments. I enjoy the comments but I confess I do not always (or even usually) understand them. First, they seem to me to rarely address anything I have said directly. Someone said, for example, "Pelosi the traitor," and "Reid the traitor," and let's see how well they can do. As I have no idea whatsoever what traitoress deeds he has in mind, and as he does not elaborate, I am mystified. Similarly, his latest comments says something to the effect that I want my "California gang" to come and mess up Idaho. As I was born and raised in Idaho, graduated from the University of Idaho, and returned to Idaho to retire, I have no idea what he is talking about. I did teach at UCLA for a time, but I taught elsewhere as well (as there were no opportunities in Idaho), but I would like to assure him I have no "gang," from California, Washington, Northwestern or otherwise. I sort of wish I did have a gang, it would make things somewhat easier living here in this forest of mindless ultra-rightism.

Similarly, I once said Gore was arguably the best qualified person ever to run for the Presidency. The comment I received was something to the effect that Jefferson was well qualified. While I believe Jefferson, at the time, was probably well-qualified, I cannot see what that had to do with my comment about Gore. What I find more interesting, however, is that anytime I have suggested Bush/Cheney ought to be impeached, or held responsible for war crimes, no critic has ever argued otherwise, just ignoring what I said and making some off the wall unrelated comment.

So come on: Is there anyone out there who thinks Bush/Cheney have not committed war crimes? Is there anyone who thinks they do not deserve impeachment? Is there anyone who believes Cheney when he says, all in all, things are going well? More importantly for the moment, is there anyone who believes Bush/Cheney and their cohorts should not be held accountable? Should their despicable and unconscionable behavior just be ignored and therefore rewarded? And if they are to be held accountable how can this not involve impeachment or worse? Let's hear it from the 31 percent that still support Bush.

Here's a thought for the day: Is homosexuality intrinsically immoral? Is it worse than blatant hypocrisy?