Sex, diets, and chicken breasts

If I were a visitor from outer space, or maybe even from another culture, and if I were asked what I thought Americans were most interested in, I would have to say sex, diets, and chicken breasts, in that order (these are intimately related). My data about sex, granted not at all scientific, comes mostly from TV, women's magazines, and even magazines about automobiles. I never read any of these magazines, I just see the covers at our local grocery store while I am checking out. Take auto magazines first as they are the simplest. It is very rare to see the cover of such a magazine that does not feature a nubile, semi-nude, provocatively posed young woman. Enough said about that. Women's magazines are worse as they don't just use the images of provocatively dressed women but come right out up front with their messages. You see covers that announce things like, fourteen ways to please your mate sexually, or great sex for all ages, or how to bring out your naughtiness for him, great things to do in bed, how to pep up your sex life, and so on and on.

On TV there are shows that of course trade on sexuality, like Desperate Housewives, for example (I have never seen any of these shows but I'm certain they exist and all feature sex above all else). Then there are the ubiquitous ads for male enhancement, viagra, cialis, and several others. These have now taken to featuring nubile young women clinging to the arms of their partners and extolling the virtues of these drugs or else standing around with idiotic expressions of sheer joy. One ad running all the time now features a handsome young woman who says, he doesn't need a prescription, he uses.....(the name of this magical potion escapes me at the moment). Whatever it is, she apparently thinks it works (do you think she ever actually saw the guy before they shot the commercial). Anyway, if you watch TV you must be aware of these products that exist only for the purpose of sexual gratification (you never hear them say anything about fertility, aiding pregnancy, or whatever - just sex).

Then there are all the diets. The most prominent diet ads at the moment come from something called Nutrisystem. You will notice that all of the men and women in these ads claim that they are now sexy, or sexier. They never say I feel healthier, or I believe I have helped my heart, or I just feel a lot better now. They all claim to be sexier. The male versions, featuring Dan Marino and other athletes, start off by asking if your sex life has slowed down or even stopped. None of them ever mention health or well-being other than being sexier. The female versions actually drip of sexy, my husband loves my body, I feel sexier now, I haven't had such a hot body since I was in school, and so on. I have nothing against sex. But when it appears to have become a cultural obsession I think perhaps it should be toned down a bit. After all, there are other things in life (well, maybe not these days).

This brings me to chicken breasts. My information on chicken breasts comes mostly from my perusing of my wife's cooking magazines and cook books. I believe it is true that the overwhelming majority of recipes for chicken nowadays (and there are thousands) call for skinless chicken breasts. In my opinion there is virtually nothing as tasteless as chicken breast, or turkey breast. When I see a recipe that starts out with the usual four skinless chicken breasts I immediately ignore it. Why this obsession with chicken breasts? Because they are not fattening, especially without the skin (which is the only part that might have any taste whatsoever if it was cooked crisply enough). In other words, chicken breasts are part of the diet business, which in turn is part of the look at me, I'm a forty year old grandmother and I still look sexy business.

I believe I can report that these obsessions do not seem to constitute part of our local culture. The majority of females here seem to have no interest either in their health or
looking sexy. There are exceptions, of course.

Someone (I can't remember who) once said, "the only way to true understanding is through an intellectual osmosis with a great-souled man" (or something to that effect). Would someone find me a great-souled man these days? Please.

I could comment on one or more of the dozens and dozens of Republican scandals but what would be the point? Everyone talks about them but no one does anything about them.

Incompetence beyond belief

How can you top this when it comes to incompetence? The Bush/Cheney administration couldn't even do something they legally could have done without screwing it up so badly they have turned it into still another scandal. The eight attorneys they recently fired all served at the pleasure of the President. As such they could simply be replaced by the President, no explanation needed. So they fired them "out of season," so to speak. When asked about it did they say the President simply wanted them replaced which they could easily have done? No, they had to lie about it. First they claimed they were fired for bad performance. This was immediately shown to be false by looking at their own ratings of the attorneys involved which were all positive. Then Alberto claimed he didn't know anything about it. False. Then they said it was all Myers idea. False. Then they said Rove had nothing to do with it. False. Then they claimed there was nothing political involved in the firings. Doubly false. First of all these kinds of appointments are instrinsically political to begin with. Second, there were blatantly political reasons involved (either the people involved were not investigating Democrats quickly enough or they were targeting Republicans). Now they argue that well, Clinton fired all 93 such attorneys when he became President. True. But irrelevant to the issue at hand. These were people the Republicans appointed themselves but then learned they weren't following the Bush/Cheney/Rove desires closely enough. In short, they were obviously politically motivated firings. So something that could have been done legally (however quietly) was turned into a scandal. Why? Because these guys simply cannot tell the truth even when the truth would have worked. They seem to be completely unable to tell the truth. Somehow they have to lie. Their lying is pathological and has been from the very beginning of this administration. Now, having lied to the point where they have no credibility whatsoever they just go on lying about everything.

None of this seems to really bother the Democrats. Oh, yeah, they love it, and they will push it as far as they can to embarrass the Republicans. BUT THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! Gonzales may be forced to resign but if so it will be a result of Republican demands as much as Democratic ones. It is obvious that we can't depend on Bush to do anything. Bush, who threatened to fire anyone involved in leaking still protects Rove who is known to have been a leaker. He has said he will stand by Gonzales even though everyone knows he is a totally incompetent and partisan lawyer for Bush rather than a bona fide Attorney General. Bush has consistently favored loyalty over competence, one of the reasons we are in this dismal situation. Heck of a job Brownie! Heck of job Rumsfeld! Heck of a job Cheney! Heck of a job Tenet! Heck of a job Libby! Heck of a job Bremer! HECK OF A JOB BUSH!

There is apparently no incompetence, no crime, no dishonesty, no hypocrisy, no deceit, no unconstitutional outrage serious enough to motivate Democrats to actually take some meaningful action to stop it all (like impeachment, to say the least). So kiss your Democracy (Republic) goodbye, get ready for your national ID card, and prepare for your mandatory tattoo (it won't hurt a bit).

Oh, please!

It appears that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed has not only confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack but also either planned or was involved in the planning of some 31 other major attacks. In other words, he was more or less single-handedly responsible for most everything. Do you believe that? I guess after for or five years of incarceration (and who knows what kind of treatment) he has finally confessed to everything. I bet if we keep him longer he will even tell us where Osama is. What baloney. Why would he not confess to everything? What difference would it make to him at this point in time? It is impossible to know whether he is pulling our leg or whether the Bush/Cheney bunch are just up to their usual tricks. As usual, I don't believe any of this nonsense.

In spite of the Israeli lobby trying desperately to get us to attack Iran I don't believe that is going to happen. Not because Bush/Cheney don't want to do it, but because realistically they (1) don't have the means, and (2) probably can't deceive the American public again. The American public is pretty naive, and pretty easily led into one disaster after another, but I think Bush/Cheney have finally gone too far with their lies and deceptions. Some people apparently believe they might attack Iran in order to avoid a legacy of abject failure in Iraq. I can't see it. Why would they want to compound one abject failure with another one that would be even worse? Bush seems to be worried about his legacy. He needn't worry, his legacy is already established. He will be universally remembered as the worst American President ever and having made the worst Foreign Policy blunder in American history. Nothing he can do now or in the next year and a half is going to change this. Pelosi and her cowardly Democrats have withdrawn their claim that Bush can't attack Iran without Congressional approval, thus giving him license to do it if he wishes, but even so, I can't see it happening (however, I am often wrong about such things). Maybe he really is stupid enough to listen to Cheney and the neocons again.

Every day in every way Republicans are doing their best to drag down God and their country. Way to go Repubs!

What cow?

You all no doubt remember the story of the man who was caught leading an obviously stolen cow down the road. When he was caught red-handed and asked why he was doing it, he responded, "what cow?" There are many different versions of this story, including one I believe in which Jimmy Durante was caught with an elephant and responded "what elephant,", and so on.

Is this not the perfect description of Alberto Gonzales's claim that the firing of eight U.S prosecutors was not politically motivated? This is such a blatantly transparent lie it is difficult not to collapse in hysterical laughter. Bush, of course, in his abysmal ignorance, has already said he has the utmost confidence in Gonzales. Gonzales's rise to power and eminence is a direct result of his faithful service to Bush ever since he was Governor of Texas. As Attorney General of the United States he still obviously feels his primary allegiance is to Bush rather than to the citizens of the U.S. He has an unfortunately small mind that is willing to justify torture and sacrifice the Constitution if that is what George W. Bush wishes. If this were a decent Administration (which, of course, it is not) Gonzales would be fired tomorrow. He will not resign and Bush is unlikely to fire him unless the Congress put so much pressure on there will be no other option. If the pressure keeps on look for Gonzales to be toast. With both the FBI violations of the Patriot Act and the firing of these Prosecutors emerging at the same moment I cannot see Gonzales surviving for very long. But, then both Bush and Cheney have survived far more egregious violations for the past six and a half years so who knows? There is only one solution to these problems. It is called IMPEACHMENT! And it should happen NOW!

As far as I know, no outside power has ever managed to conquer Afghanistan, including the mighty Russian army not many years ago. So what makes the U.S. or the U.N. believe they will succeed when so many have so predictably failed? Perhaps if the only goal is to protect an oil pipeline across Afghan territory or some less ambitious project we might succeed for a while but probably not without some substantial human cost. Oh well, oil is important. Human lives are expendable. Let's show these towel-heads who controls what. On to Tehran!

Both Hillary and Biden gave particularly impassioned speeches to the assembled Firefighters of America. Guiliani was absent (he claimed a conflict). Kucinich was not even mentioned. Was he there? Did he give a speech? Does he actually exist? The MSM treatment of Dennis Kucinich is SHAMEFUL! But, then, who cares about PEACE?

Who's on first

I confess that trying to keep up with all the scandals (there seems to be a new one every day) is somehow beyond my abilities. I think it would be interesting is someone would actually list all the scandals of the present administration from the beginning up until now (this is totally beyond any resources available to me). What do you think? Dozens? Hundreds? This is one way the Bush/Cheney administration survives as it does - no one can keep up with the scandals. Before one is thoroughly investigated (if at all) the next one pops up. As a result of this nothing much ever comes of any of these miserable violations of law and morality. The most recent of these blatant violations have to do with FBI violations of the Patriot Act and the questionable firing of eight Federal prosecutors. Both Shumer and Biden have called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. How long do you think it will take for this to simply blow over like all of the rest of them. My favorite, if you have followed this blog for a while you will know, is not the most important but potentially one of the most juicy, the Gannon/Guckert affair. How is it that a known male prostitute (strictly an "on-top guy") was allowed into and out of the White House on occasions where there was no ostensible reason for him to be there? Someone had to be responsible for allowing him in and out but we have never been told just who that someone was. As this was hushed up big time it had to have been someone with lots of power. Of course he could have been there just for the daily prayer meetings.

John McCain, warmonger number one (or maybe two) has now said that if we insist on withdrawing our troops on a timeline it will send a message to the Iraqis that we are not only going to leave, but when. He obviously thinks this is bad. I thought the whole point of it was to do just that - tell the Iraqis when we were going to leave so they would prepare to take over. Of course as we have no intention whatsoever of leaving the whole argument is moot.

I am already tired of listening to all the BS about Gore's electric bill. Yes, he has a really big electrical bill. He also has a very large house out of which both he and his wife operate much of their business. He has paid for expensive carbon credits (or whatever they are called) to offset his heavy usage. While this may prove eventually to not be the best way to go, it is at the moment the acceptable solution to excessive energy use. At least he is trying to do the right thing. I would like to know the consumption records of other people who live in large houses and how much, if anything, they pay to compensate.

Of course I think the whole to-do about electricity consumption is utterly absurd as long as every skyscraper in the the United States is allowed to leave all their lights on all night long. Unlike Gore, virtually no one in the U.S., let alone corporations, makes any attempt to save energy. Certainly not the automobile industry where substantial savings could easily be made if we had the will to do so.

It seems to me there are two main questions about global warming: (1) does it exist, and (2) does it have anything to do with human activities? It seems to me that the first question is indisputable. The evidence for warming is right here in front of our eyes, what with the melting of the glaciers, the displacement of species, and so on. With respect to the second question I also think the answer is obvious although there are still a few who apparently disagree. As I understand it there are something like 2000 scientists, from 30 or 40 different countries, who agree that human activity has something to do with it. It seems to me highly unlikely that all of these scientists are giving in to political pressures (as some may seem to be doing in the U.S.). It is important to note that the U.K. and the E.U. are already taking steps to curb global warming even thought the U.S. is not doing much.

One of the arguments against human activity has to do with the fact that the earth has undergone climactic changes repeatedly over the the last hundreds of thousands of years. This is indisputable. But it is also known that the earth's temperature has risen fairly substantially over the last 100 years. One hundred years in geological time is no more than an instant. The question would seem to be, is the fairly dramatic rise in temperature over the last 100 years totally unrelated to human activity? What has happened in human cultures over the past 100 years? A billion (?) cars and trucks, millions of ATV's, personal watercraft, power boats, lawnmowers, hundreds of coal fired plants, the growth of waste to energy plants, thousands of airplanes, and what-have-you. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe this is all merely coincidental. Well, like, who really needs polar bears anyway?

Suckers

Anonymous: I read an article some time ago that I believe said that Obama was getting major funding from the Nuclear Energy people and Exxon. I don't know where I saw it. I have spent the better part of the afternoon trying to trace it down but was unable to find it. I did learn that the Nuclear people are, indeed, supporting Obama, who is thought to be sympathetic to their desire for more nuclear plants. One of the big companies involved is called Exelon. I now think it is possible that either the person who wrote the article (which I can't find), or perhaps even myself, mistook Exelon for Exxon. If this is true I am sorry for misleading everyone. Even so, I would not be surprised if he is getting money from Exxon (along with Hillary). While he is soliciting small donations he obviously didn't raise all his money so quickly from mom and pop. Although I tried I could not find a list of his major donors anywhere. There is a recent article in Harper's about this.

Did you really believe that Bush was going to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq just for a short time? Let's see, it turned out to be something like 27,000 troops, what with the support troops. Now he has asked for an additional 8,200 more troops. And the generals on the ground have said they will need the troops probably through next year (if not forever). There are suckers born every minute and a Bush/Cheney to take them. Want to bet the Democrats will deny his request? Maybe when pigs fly. I can see no solution to this monumental problem short of impeachment. I think we should start with Cheney. Democrats seem unwilling to do anything much except dither. If Bush/Cheney do not deserve impeachment, right now, we might as well drop impeachment as part of our political system and start addressing Bush as Your Royal Highness, King of Kings, Emperor, Your Eminence, and so on. This is the most absurd situation of all time in the history of our country and neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be willing to do anything about it.

Senator Schumer has suggested that Gonzales should resign because he is more interested in defending and aiding Bush than he is in being a bona fide Attorney General. Nice to learn after all these years that someone has actually figured this out (dumb as I am I knew it from the beginning). Now, having admitted that the FBI violated the Patriot Act, and also being involved in purging Judges for political reasons, he may have gone too far (even for Republicans, if that is possible). Of course he should resign. So should Cheney. I think there is no chance they will. They will have to be forced out. No one will lead. I think they are waiting for Mickey Mouse.

Bush seems to be making a big hit in South America, hugging leaders and giving them nicknames and being the consummate gladhander that he is. I have no doubt they all believe the U.S. is truly nothing but a benevolent father figure sincere in looking out for their best interests. History proves it, starting with Colombus and coming right down to the present. Ask Hugo Chavez.

Why vote?

I have faithfully voted in every election I could for more than fifty years. And I have always disparaged those who have taken the position, why vote? It is true that we always have to vote for some Hobson's choice, the presumed best of two bad choices, but I have gone along and voted nonetheless. We ordinary citizens don't really have much to do with which candidates are selected, we just get to choose between them, whoever they are. Recent developments are causing me to think that perhaps there really is no point in voting.

In the last election, 2006, we voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, believing that if they could get elected they would do something to change things, like bring an end to this horrible, stupid, unnecessary war that is bleeding our army and our treasury. Having flirted with a non-binding resolution that was little more than busy-work, they now claim to be passing a bill that would bring our troops home (well, not all of the troops) soon (well, not too soon), if, of course Bush doesn't veto it (which he has already threatened to do). Along the way they added even more billions to Bush's request for more money for Afghanistan and Iraq. Some big accomplishment. Way to go Democrats!

What is worse, a majority of American voters appear to be in favor of impeachment for Bush/Cheney. The case for impeachment is absolutely sound and there is no reason it should not happen. After all, lying to Congress and the people to lead us into an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war" is in and of itself cause for impeachment. Then add to that torture, war profiteering, illegal spying, targeting civilians, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, renditions, using illegal weapons, and etc., etc., it would seem impeachment would certainly be justified (and would also help to bring an end to this unconsionable "war"). Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." So much for our voting for Democrats. Why should we believe that even if Democrats win in 2008 they will do any better? All of the Democratic candidates are little better than warmongers. Hillary, of course, is the most blatant warmonger. But Obama, who was against the war, has not indicated he is prepared to end it. Edwards believes the most important thing that must be done is to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb. The only one with any genuine interest in getting us out quickly and establishing some kind of peace in the world is Dennis Kucinich (who, you say?). The sad fact is, as many have said for years, is that there is no substantial difference between the two parties. They both get their funding from the same sources and still dance to the tunes of the enormous corporations that run the world. Hillary gets a fund raiser from Murdoch. Obama gets money from Exxon and the nuclear industry. Edwards (I think) gets his support from lawyers. And so it goes. The more things change the more they stay the same.

It's not as if voting for Republicans is a choice. There is no viable third party and probably never will be, given the nature of things. So, I ask you, why vote? Give me a candidate who is absolutely committed to ending this madness and one who is not uncritically in support of Israeli apartheid and I will happily, gladly, enthusiastically vote. Can there be such a candidate? I doubt it.

Strange Idaho Republicans

Last evening at our monthly Democratic meeting our Superintendent of Schools appeared hat in hand as he does periodically to ask us to support the latest school levy. You see, here in Idaho the state does not really believe in education and therefore they do not provide sufficient monies to provide it. In rural areas like ours this means that if the levy fails all sorts of dire consequences ensue. Theoretically, I guess you could have a situation like ours where you would have no schools at all (or at least they would be so poor as to be even more useless than they are now).

The reason education in Idaho is in such poor shape is because Republicans have controlled our State legislature for years and they do not want to support education. Indeed, not too many years ago one of them even suggested we change our State Constitution so the state would not even be responsible for education. They have fought against spending for education year after year. It finally got so bad that the Judge who was in charge of hearing the charges actually had to order them to do something about it. They have procrastinated and argued and dilly dallied endlessly and still have done very little to improve things.

I think they not only hate education, they also hate children. They recently voted against a bill that would have provided some basic oversight over child care centers. You know, basic things like background checks against sexual perverts, minimum standards for child care providers, and so on (Idaho ranks dead last of all 50 states with respect to child care protections and standards). During the discussions of this bill one of our Republican representatives actually said, "if you provide them with education they will want jobs." Frankly, I didn't believe this but I am told it is true. He also said that public education is nothing more than "institutionalised child abuse." He didn't add, "in Idaho," although that must have been what he had in mind. He and some others argued that mothers should just stay home and take care of their children, there is no need for child care, pre-school, kindergarten, or such foolishness, as those things ought to be learned at home. In other words, he believes it is better for mothers (especially single mothers) to stay home and starve together with their children than for them to starve separately. Republicans also killed a measure that would have increased the sales tax by one cent with the money to be earmarked specifically for education. Had this passed the Superintendent would not have had to be asking once again for the levy.

The Superintendent and our local teachers complain often about their salaries, money for supplies and equipment, large classes, the usual complaints you hear from educators. What makes this so strange is that THE MAJORITY OF THEM VOTE REPUBLICAN TIME AFTER TIME! They vote against their own interests and then complain. This is true of teachers as well as administrators. When this was politely suggested to our Superintendent he was remarkably silent on the matter.

I have worked most of my adult life in education. I have NEVER voted against a school levy. You see, there is a problem here for people like me. Knowing what I know about the voting habits of our local educators I would like to vote against the levy. But then I think of the children. They are the ones who will suffer if the levy doesn't pass. Republicans know this, I guess, and so they continue to force us to "bail them out" time after time, refusing to rectify this obvious financial problem.

One of our long time Democrats, who has voted for the levy repeatedly over the years, announced: "I am not supporting the levy. I am sick and tired of bailing them out. This is a Republican problem. Let them solve it." Like Jack Benny when confronted with the demand, "your money or your life," I'm thinking it over.

Apparently there is no amount of corruption, lying, treason, incompetence, hypocrisy, greed and profiteering, to say nothing of war crimes, that will cause anyone in the House or Senate to take meaningful action against those responsible for such things. Bush/Cheney and everyone else seem to be willing to just bunker down and wait a week for the latest scandals to just blow over and be forgotten. By the way, I'm still waiting for the Gannon/Guckert story.

On warming

Bubblehead - I confess I must not read widely enough on the blogs. I have yet to see one that predicts Cheney will resign. But I agree with you. If there are such blogs I think they are wrong. Unless, perhaps, so many Republicans enter Cheney's office and "make him an offer he can't refuse" he will have no choice.

There are still a few perverse individuals who argue that global warming is (l) either not occurring at all, or (2) is a result simply of natural cycles of nature. To subscribe to the first of these seems to me to be so far-fetched in view of the evidence that we need not take it seriously. To argue the second possibility is not so easily dismissed although I believe it to be no more reasonable than the first. That is, it is undeniably true that the earth seems to have gone through periods of warming and cooling (unless, I guess, if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old which would make such cycles about as reasonable as the existence of dinosaurs contemporaneously with humans). So, let us agree that the earth has and does go through natural periods of climate change. Was there any previous period of time when there were somewhere in the vicinity of a billion cars and trucks (I don't know how many cars and trucks there are but I am guessing a billion more or less)? And how about millions of ATV's, power boats, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, combines, tractors, lawnmowers, etc., and hundreds if not thousands of coal fired power plants, billions of people burning their trash, and other human related activities. Did such things exist back during the previous warming trends? The answer is obviously no. Is it therefore safe to conclude that all these human activities may in fact be influencing climate on this tiny planet we call home? If you don't think so I suggest you submit you resume to the White House. I'm sure they will make a place for you.

There is now talk that our Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, may not be around much longer. His recent purge of Federal Prosecutors may be too scandalous even for Republicans to defend. Hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I am still trying to grasp Republican logic on the differences between Clinton's impeachment for perjury and Libby's case. Kate O'Beirne seems to think that because Clinton admitted to perjury and Libby was only convicted of it by a jury of his peers, that somehow Libby should be pardoned (of course O'Beirne, being a nitwit of the first order, might be simply ignored). But Lindsey Graham is also arguing for a pardon for Libby. Remember him, the guy who was all gung-ho to get Clinton for perjury, but who now wants a different treatment for a Republican colleague convicted of the same offense. He says the two cases are different. He's right. The Clinton case was trivial, this one is serious. You just have to make excuses for Republicans. They have small, smooth brains. They are also the most blatant, disgusting, vile and despicable HYPOCRITES ever to despoil the body politic (to say nothing of the universe).

Credibility?

Some have said that the Libby conviction is going to undermine the Administration's credibility. Balderdash! This administration had no credibility to begin with so how could it be undermined? Unless, perhaps, zero credibility plus zero credibility somehow adds up to positive credibility (I was never much on algebra or whatever it takes to calculate such things). Perhaps the conviction of Libby will drive down Bush/Cheney's poll numbers? Nonsense! Their poll numbers can't go down much further than they already are (unless the approximately 30% of the mentally retarded that still claim to support them are somehow eliminated entirely). I suspect the Libby conviction is going to make little difference unless Congress demands further investigations of Cheney, et al (don't bet on this happening - Congress is still hesitating to debate on whether or not they should debate because debating might be interpreted as not supporting the troops because if the troops hear they are debating or not debating they might come to the obvious conclusion THAT CONGRESS IS A HOPELESS MESS THAT IS NO HELP TO THEM WHATSOEVER).

Then there is the question of impeachment. Was anything revealed during the Libby trial that might indicate the possibility of impeachment? Well, PIG PUCKY! There are so many reasons to impeach Bush/Cheney already that any more become just super redundant (indeed, this is a problem already because there is no genuine agreement as to which charges should take precedence). I have suggested for months that if Bush/Cheney had any decency whatsoever, or any interest in the well-being of our nation, they should resign. Now George McGovern has said the same thing. Bush/Cheney cannot resign because they would then be subject to prosecution for war crimes. So here we are, stuck with known incompetent war criminals pretending to run our country, and no one willing to do anything about it. Impeachment seems to be out of the question and the Republicans, who could demand resignations, are still drinking of the kool-aid.

Meanwhile, more of our troops are being killed, along with many hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens, while the bulk of the insurgents are vacationing in Iran waiting for us to exhaust ourselves in alienating more and more innocents. The "surge" is surging (an additional 2000 troops were just requested), and we are being asked to provide even more billions for this "success." Does it not occur to anyone that what has been, and is going on in Iraq is UTTER MADNESS!

The Republicans could stop this tomorrow if they wanted to do so. Democrats could stop it tomorrow if they wanted to do so. So what's the problem? Americans can't bring themselves to take their ball and go home. It's just not the American way.

If you ever had any doubt that Kate O'Beirne was a drooling Republican idiot that doubt was surely dispelled today by her performance on Hardball. She obviously had little idea what she was talking about (particularly with reference to pardons), she just kept mouthing Republican talking points that were either untrue or irrelevant, and she insisted that somehow perjury by Clinton was different from perjury by Libby. She seems to believe that because Clinton admitted to perjury and Libby was merely convicted of it he should be pardoned. Republican logic, I guess.

Anyway, while those who support the surge, and those who do not support the surge, continue to do nothing but bullshit each other, our troops and more and more Iraqis continue to die each day. It will get worse and will never get better until we get out.

Guilty!

I am so pleased that my fears about a hung jury were unfounded and that Libby was rightfully found guilty on 4 of the 5 charges against him. It appears to have been a very thorough, cautious, and responsible jury (that wondered why Rove and others were not on trial along with Libby). More than merely finding Libby guilty the trial also exposed the evil machinations of none other than his boss, Dick the Slimy. Now the real fun will begin.

The right wing is already demanding that Bush pardon Libby immediately. They, and Libby's defense lawyers say he did nothing wrong, nothing at all. The jury obviously didn't see it that way so now we have a very high level player guilty of a felony (I guess this is the most high level person ever convicted of a felony). This will presumably be the end of his career. The verdict will, of course, be contested by his high-powered defense team. They will try to get a mistrial declared (highly unlikely). Failing that they will appeal (also highly unlikely to succeed). Libby is to be sentenced in June. He could actually go to jail at that time if the judge so desired.

Libby could theoretically be given 25 years in prison. Some believe that if he is threatened with that much time he might be willing to testify about others in order to avoid that. I believe it is highly unrealistic to assume he would get more than a year or two in which case it is also unrealistic to assume he will "rat" on anyone else, especially on Cheney. It is almost surely the case that whether he spends any time in jail or not, he has been asssured that the Bush mafia will take care of him and his. I assume this is already a done deal.

Then there is the question of a pardon. If Bush were to pardon him before the end of his Presidency it will certainly look like he is covering up his own behavior in this treasonous business. That is, he has an obvious conflict of interest. An immediate pardon will not happen, nor need it because the aftermath of the trial will take probably months to play out. While it is possible that Libby could spend some time in jail before the end of Bush's Presidency (and perhaps he has been promised he will never go to jail) that would be time enough for a pardon. The best bet is Bush will pardon him when he leaves office.

Many are rejoicing that justice has been served, that no one is above the law, that now we may learn what really went on in the Pentagon and the White House, and etc. I say, not so fast. Without knowing what will happen next it is too early to crow about justice. What if the case ia successfully appealed? What if Bush does pardon him? Will justice then be served? And what about Cheney? Is he to get off without even a reprimand? Will that be justice? And how about Rove? Rove is known to have leaked Valerie Wilson's name but he has not been tried. Is that justice? I think it is great that a jury of his peers found Libby guilty and I guess that is at least a temporary justice. Let us wait and see if justice is truly served when Cheney, Rove, and others are also found guilty.

In the meantime let us thank big Juju for our independent prosecutor, Fitzgerald. He did a marvelous job, nonpartisan, never leaked a thing, did what was asked of him, and did it so professionally and conscientiously it was a thing of beauty. Luckily, he was appointed before Bush/Cheney and the Attorney General began their purge of prosecutors.

Nine days?

The jury in the Scooter Libby case has been out now for nine days. This, I think, does not bode well for a conviction. It seemed to me, from what I could follow on tv and elsewhere, that the case against Libby was pretty clear cut. With nine (I think it was nine) people testifying against Libby's account of the affair it would seem pretty obvious that he lied. So what are they deliberating about for so long? Having served on juries in the past I realize they can be totally irrational, but really, this case seems so obvious to me I cannot understand the problem. At this point I would not be surprised to see a hung jury (which would not make me at all happy). Of course the most interesting part of this trial has little to do with Libby's innocent or guilt, but rather, with the behavior of Cheney and even Bush. Unfortunately, they are not on trial (even though they certainly should be). Is it not perfectly obvious there was a conspiracy on the part of Cheney, Libby, and others to "out" Valerie Plame in order to punish her husband for daring to challenge their blatant lies about going to "war" (and perhaps other reasons as well)? Or have I just missed something?

There is one issue that gets very little attention in this ridiculously long Presidential campaign. Israel. It is perfectly obvious that Hillary is a strong supporter of Israel. Obama recently made a speech that indicates he, too, is a pretty much uncritical supporter of Israel. As far as I know all of the candidates for the Presidency, both Democrats and Republicans, are ardent supporters of Israel. As the Israeli/Palestinian problem is the most important problem of the Middle East, and absolutely critical to any eventual solution, the blatantly partisan (I would say even racist) postition of the U.S. on this issue will insure that no solution will ever be possible. Both Carter and Clinton at least tried to be honest brokers between the two parties, but Bush/Cheney and the neocons have so obviously promoted only Israeli interests, the situation is now pretty much hopeless. I want a President who will honestly try to reach some kind of decent agreement, recognizing that the Palestinians are equal human beings with rights every bit as basic and important as those of the Israelis, who will in fact curb the repeated and consistent abuses of the Israelis with respect to the Palestinians. No more two or three billion dollar handouts to Israel year after year to pursue their basically genocidal policies. As Israel has been wantonly stealing more and more Palestinian land and water for all these years (in blatant violation of UN strictures - far more violations than any other country) it will not be easy to now settle on any agreement about boundaries, borders, or whatever. This may mean that the problems are in fact insolvable. If they are then it is clear there will never be peace in the Middle East - not ever. Will we ever have a President willing to stand up to the powerful Israeli lobby, a President with the moral authority to demand an end to the repeated Israeli violations of UN resolutions and the basic human rights of Palestinians? As it appears no one can be elected President of the United States without the permission of the Israelis I guess the answer is obvious. Our permanent bases in Iraq will help insure the hopeless status quo, as well as insuring the safety of Exxon, Shell, and the other rapacious oil companies that will now take over the management of the Iraqi oilfields with terms guaranteeing them outrageous profits. "To the victors go the spoils." Except remember, "it ain't over 'til its over," and it certainly won't be over until "the fat lady sings."

They laughed and applauded!

I have not seen any confirmation of the claim that Al Gore has put together an exploratory committee for a possible run for the Presidency. However, I have been assured by my source that this was announced publicly by someone who should know at the just completed Democratic Party meeting in Boise. Many people heard it. I assume it is true.

As you must know by now (as it has been replayed monotonously on tv), the horse-faced major Fluff Girl of the Republican Party, made a remark so outrageously stupid and uncalled for that her audience of Republicans burst into laughter and applause. Any decent person who heard this absurd anti-gay, anti-Edwards slur should have hissed and booed at the top of their voice. But did this group of conservative Republicans do that? Of course not. They thought it was wonderful. This group, by the way, included Romney, who actually introduced this vicious, unprincipled, unbalanced creature, Gingrich, Brownback, and other high level mucky-mucks of the conservative branch (is there really any other branch) of the Republican Party. Coulter's remark was not only ridiculous, based on nothing but malicious intent, but was also just plain stupid. Her Republican audience ate it up. What does that tell you about these people? Those who lie down with dogs get fleas. Coulter is a true dog who should have been mercifully led to the psychiatric dog pound long ago. Republicans think she is wonderful. Do Republicans think? Apparently not.

Why do Idaho Republicans hate children? For years and years they have refused to adequately fund our schools. Indeed, one of them once proposed to change the Idaho Constitution so the state wouldn't even be responsible for education. Our schools have degenerated, deteriorated, and gone downhill for years because of their refusal to come up with adequate funds. It's like they not only hate the children, they apparently also hate education itself. But their hatred for our children has now reached heights to atrociously awful to be virtually unbelievable. A bill designed to improve child care, to supervise those who provide child care, including the screening out of sex offenders, to establish minimum safety standards, has failed. Idaho is ranked dead last in child care in the United States. Some Republicans suggested that mothers should just stay home and take care of their children. Others suggested there was simply no way they would ever allow their children to be cared for by providers. Republican Steve Thayn (Emmet) thinks all early childhood education should be by parents in the home environment (no early childhood, no pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, etc.). He also thinks school should not be more than four hours per day, Social Security, welfare, and public education are charities that we don't need, and, indeed, families should be in complete control of education. Furthermore, there should be no mandatory education. Great ideas! Why shouldn't we allow our uneducated parents to supervise the education of their children? No doubt they could teach them how to shoe horses and make cannon balls, to say nothing of how to skin a buffalo and eat peas off the blade of their knife. We don't need no microwaves and computers, no classes in science, no stinking watches (there is nothing wrong with sun dials). Doesn't it make you wonder what century these guys are living in? I wonder if they even know what country they live in.

How is it that Idaho has the apparently unique capacity to elect and support utter nitwits like Thayn and Sali? We apparently enjoy being the laughingstock of the country, to say nothing of having no credible voice in the management of our country. No mandatory education, abortions that cause breast cancer, black helicopters poised at the border to take away our lawn chairs, gays and women having rights? Keep 'em in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant I say. At least they'd have time to teach their children something - like maybe the alphabet and the multiplication tables. I loved my father very much. He had a fourth grade education. I'm glad he was not entirely responsible for my education (and so was he). Here in Idaho we say: give us our stupid, our uneducated, our narrow-minded, bigoted, racist, uninformed (except for Rush Limbaugh), and 18th century philosophers, we need them for our Idaho legislature.

Great news!

I was told today by one of my far flung spies and informers that Al Gore has put together an Exploratory Committee to consider a possible run for the Presidency (that he once won but was denied by a totally out of control partisan Supreme Court). If you have not already seen this elsewhere, consider this a scoop. This is great news as I believe Gore is the only person with the credibility, experience, knowledge, and international connections to at least try to salvage us from the pit of shame that Bush/Cheney have plunged us into. This is at least a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal situation. Hillary is nothing but a John McCain in skirts. Obama and Edwards are probably okay but not experienced enough. Kusinich would be great but the MSM continue to belittle and butcher him to the point where he has no real chance for the nomination. As the MSM have already excoriated Gore to the point of absurdity he might well be able to survive their dishonest and unprincipled attacks from now on. Gore may not be perfect, he might not wear the clothes the MSM thinks he should wear, perhaps he weighs more than they think he should, maybe he's not the ideal person you would want to "have a beer with," but he is absolutely the most qualified candidate for President (granted that the American electorate doesn't seem to care if their Presidents are qualified or not - witness the witless marvel they have sort of elected twice in recent years). But if qualifications matter, Gore wins hands down. No contest. Given the depths of depravity Bush/Cheney have led us into it is going to require someone with unusual experience and knowledge to try to turn this sinking ship of state around. Please, can't we have someone with an IQ higher than his age?

There was some annual meeting of ultra-rightists for the past three days (I can't remember what it is called). Most of the Republican candidates for President were there (except for McCain who seems to avoid such meetings. I guess he has "other priorities.") If you want some insight into the quality of this group consider that Ann Coulter was one of the featured speakers. Among other things she referred to Edwards as a "faggot." Does this mean she knows something no one else does about Edwards? Of course not. Coulter is a vicious, hateful, revolting, disgusting, unprincipled woman who has learned that if she says such absurd and hateful things, whether they have any foundation in fact whatsoever or not, she will (l) get a lot of attention, and (2) make a lot of money. The fact that Republicans listen to her and apparently buy her books, is a measure of just how disgustingly awful they have become. Coulter is for Republicans what I think is known in porn movie circles as a "fluff girl." You can't sink much lower than that.

Any songwriters out there? We need someone to compose the "Waiting for Impeachment Blues." Perhaps a nice stirring march - "The March of the War Criminals." Better yet, "Incompetents on Parade." What a great musical could be made of the Bush/Cheney Administration. It would put "Springtime for Hitler" to shame. Not to worry. Nothing will happen. Nothing. Republicans are too corrupt. Democrats too timid. Let us merely continue this macabre dance to oblivion.

We're not ready?

Somewhere today I saw a report that said 90% of our national guard units are not ready for what it is they are supposed to be ready for. This is because, it was said, they lack billions of dollars worth of equipment and such. You got that? Billions of dollars short of presumably what they ought to have to be ready (for something or other). The U.S. has a military budget larger than almost all of the rest of the world combined, and has had for quite some time. So what has happened to all that money? How could it be that our national guard (and even our regular troops) do not have enough equipment? The army says it needs billions upon billions more in order to be fully prepared. So what do they expect us to do? Our defense budget is already immense, far more than can reasonably be justified. Where does the money go? What is the problem? Do they think we should just earmark all of our tax money for the military? Give up social security, medicare, education, infrastructure, and everything else so we can build up our military even more?

The real problem is, and I don't hate to say it, is that there is no connection between what we spend on national defense and national defense. Most of those billions upon billions upon billions do not produce what we actually need for defense, they simply line the pockets of GE, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and the rest of our corporate masters. This is the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, except that now it has become the military/industrial/political/fascist complex that exists primarily to take tax dollars from our citizens and transfer them to the powers that be. I cannot claim to be an expert on such matters, but I'll bet we could reduce our military budget by half and not even notice the difference in how well we are protected, provided, of course, the money was actually earmarked for defense rather than immoral profits for the few. Let's have a thorough and comprehensive report on just where all that defense money goes. It will never happen because those in charge of such things know perfectly well that the defense budget is indefensible. So keep your focus on Anna Nicole Smith's burial and Britney's crotchless panties and do not ask what your government is doing to you. I guess it may be good advice, when you are being raped you might as well lay back and enjoy it.

I don't understand why simple things are so hard for people to understand. Everyone (more or less) keeps talking about bringing the troops home. Somehow they don't seem to understand that BUSH/CHENEY ARE NEVER GOING TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME! If you want to bring the troops home you have to get rid of Bush/Cheney. It's simple, especially now that they are almost on the verge of literally stealing Iraqi oil which was their goal from the very beginning. If their Iraqi puppet government signs the deal they are being offered (coerced into) there will always have to be American troops stationed there to protect the oil company interests. Is this really hard to understand? The Iraqi's only real hope to keep from getting totally screwed is to absolutely refuse this deal. Will they be able to withstand the pressure? I sincerely hope so. But we might have to eventually pay them a fair price for their oil. What a tragedy.

Winning and losing

In any competitive enterprise, as far as I know, there are always winners and losers. This basic truth seems not to apply to U.S. "war" efforts. Apparently our military adventures are such that we cannot lose. If we appear to be losing we just continue the enterprise endlessy, I guess into eternity. Because we cannot lose. Thus it is that I heard the only Iraq veteran serving in Congress, when speaking about Afghanistan, say "we have to win." We don't seem to be winning there. But we keep on fighting because, apparently, "we have to win." It is as if none of these people have ever experienced (or even conceived) of losing. Has every football, basketball, baseball or other team ever not lost? Weren't we always told we should learn to be "good losers?" Weren't we all taught that "you can't win them all?" Would someone be kind enought to tell me what it is we might actually "win" in Afghanistan? If no one has ever been able to subdue Afghanistan, including the Russians with 100,000 troops, what makes us believe we can win anything. What is there to win, assuming it is even possible to win? Indeed, explain to me why we are even still there (they don't seem to have a lot of oil). Oh, right, I know, we are bringing them democracy (at the barrels of our guns). We are going to make it possible for Afghani women to wear bikinis instead of burkas. Actually, we are the goddamndest fools ever created by intelligent design.

Harry Reid, the leader of our Senate, has now decided to put off any further discussion of Iraq for a couple of weeks. Like, there is nothing going on there that requires any urgent discussion or solution or anything. Perhaps there will be a moratorium on violence while the Democrats decide what, if anything, they might decide to do. The U.S. Senate, the greatest non-deliberative body in the world. They can't even decide whether to talk about deciding. What the hell, a few more soldiers and probably hundreds more innocent Iraqis will die while our Senators suck their thumbs, but we wouldn't want to act precipitously. And we certainly wouldn't want to take any meaningful action - like impeaching the two greatest war criminals on earth, the only practical way to stop their insanity before it destroys us all. The only Congressperson that has a real plan for bringing our troops home quickly, and makes sense out of madness, Dennis Kucinich, is treated with contempt by the MSM. He is trying to sell a product no one seems to want - PEACE! We simply cannot tamper with our military/industrial/political/fascist complex. We can't afford to mess around with a functioning whole designed to insure that the rich get richer and poor get poorer. It's the American way.

Many years back a starlet had a huge St. Bernard that she named Flopalong Placidly. For some reason I cannot understand this has stayed with me all these years. When I let it, it becomes like a sickness. I tend to run these kinds of description over and over again. You know, things like Creepalong Crabbily, Runalong Rapidly, Crashalong Crabbily, Flapalong Floridly, Lopalong Lucidly, Bouncealong Bountiously, Sprintalong Splendidly, Inchalong Insipidly, Crawlalong Cautiously, and on and on. The possibilities are endless. I wish I had never heard of Flopalong Placidly. But then, I wish I had never heard of Bush/Cheney, neocons, or Republicans.

It can get worse

I find it hard to believe but, unfortunately, it can get worse. Bush/Cheney might actually attack Iran, or give license to Israel to do it (of course we would have to get involved). I am losing all faith. I no longer believe in American Democracy, I no longer believe in our leaders, their goals, their competence, their decency, or even their basic humanity. This goes for Democratic leadership as well as Republican. What on earth is it going to take to get someone, anyone, to do something about the horrors Bush/Cheney have wrought? The facts, by now, are pretty clear. The Republican Administration (Bush/Cheney and their neocon buddies) deliberately lied to lead us into an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and unnecessary "war" against a small nation that was no threat to anyone. In the process of executing that "war" they have committed multiple and horrible war crimes - the killing of thousands of innocent civilians, torture, the use of illegal weapons of war, hiding prisoners, renditions, war profiteering, and more. They have also caused us to lose whatever moral ground we might have had and turned virtually the entire world against us.

Here at home they have abolished habeaus corpus, violated the Constitution, illegally spied on us, repeatedly lied to us, driven up the national debt to obscene heights, and are admittedly and flagrantly attempting to establish a fascist dictatorship, all of this financed by and deliberately planned by huge international corporations dedicated to returning ordinary citizens to the status of peasants and drones, laboring for less than livable wages, and totally at the mercy of our corporate owned media that no longer even pretends to give us real news about the state of the world.

So what does our supposedly opposition party do about this? Why, nothing. Our Democratic Party is so inept, so cowardly, so timid, the best they can do is pass a nonbinding resolution that our apparently otherworldly President has already said he will ignore.

So what in the hell is it going to take to do something? A majority of the American people now apparently are in favor of impeachment. Several states have suggested impeachment. The reasons for impeachment are so many and so obvious it is difficult to tell which ones to use. The case for impeachment is so clear cut and obvious it could probably be achieved in little less than an afternoon. What would be the consequences of impeachment? Who cares? Whatever they were, they could not possibly leave us in a condition any more dire than where we are at the moment. Gutless Democrats say they are afraid to cut off funding for the "war" as they would be accused of not supporting the troops. By whom? the 27% of lunatics who still claim to support this evil administration? How better to support the troops than bringing them home safely from a civil war that is none of our business (except for the fact that we created the conditions for it). The obvious solution to this dilemna and to end the "war" is IMPEACHMENT!

Of course in all the discussion over bringing the troops home and ending the "war" and avoiding chaos in Iraq (chaos which already exists), and blah, blah, blah, is the fact that no one mentions. Bush/Cheney (and I am beginning to suspect no one else, including Democrats) have no intention of ever bringing the troops home from Iraq. We are building (or have already completed) permanent bases there. We are finishing an unprecedented half billion dollar embassy as an American outpost in Iraq. We have just about finished our plan to turn over control of Iraqi oil to the major oil companies, and not on terms very favorable to Iraq (Cheney's illicit dream come true). This is why Bush/Cheney can continue to speak of "victory," because closing the deal to control their oil is what the goal has been all along. Who cares about some dead soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis, we're about to get our hands on that oil. And until that oil is gone Bush/Cheney are never going to bring our troops home (at least not all of them). "Defeat is not an option." Those who say "victory is not an option" are wrong, because they do not understand the Bush/Cheney definition of victory. If we have to have a never ending war to maintain control of Middle Eastern oil, so be it. Don't it make you right proud to be a Amurican?

Idaho taxes

Last night we attended a "Pizza and Politics" get together of Bonner County Democrats (Bonner County being immediately south of our Boundary County). They have lots more people and lots more money but you couldn't really tell it from the turnout (there was also no pizza). Anyway, there were a number of our Idaho Congresspersons in attendance and they gave us some idea of the problems facing a small minority, as well as some idea of some of the problems they were discussing. One of these problems has to do with the Idaho tax on food. Idaho is one of only a few states that actually taxes food. I don't know the history of this tax or who the sadist was that conceived of taxing food. It reminds me of the England of Robin Hood where no matter how poor or hungry you were, you couldn't kill or eat the King's deer. Here it doesn't matter how hungry or poor you are, you have to pay taxes on your food. I suspect the originator of this (in my opinion immoral tax) was probably the same as whoever decided we should pay our property taxes just before Christmas (but I digress).

Apparently, back in the dim, dark and limited recesses of their Republican minds they have decided to do something about this unjust tax (remember, here in Idaho we also have income taxes and property taxes). There has been some discussion of this for some time now. As I understand it, the present tax credit is $20 for residents, and $35 for those older than 65. The Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee has a bill that would increase the income-tax credit on food to $50 for most Idaho residents and $70 for seniors. When this suggested bill went forward someone wanted to reduce it to $40. Our new governor, Clement Leroy "Butch" Otter, wants to provide $90 to low income residents. There would be some kind of sliding scale as income increases from the lowest levels. You know, if you earn $25,000 per year you would pay fewer food taxes than if it were $25001. Think what this might do for income tax preparations. There are apparently a few sensible individuals who think we should just eliminate the tax on food entirely (no one takes them seriously).

I think there are unlimited possibilities here for changing the food tax, as well as unlimited problems. If we are worried about helping the poor with this tax, why not just tax expensive foods they can't afford to eat? If they are really poor they probably don't pay any food tax to begin with. So why not taxes on beluga caviar and filet mignon, to say nothing of lobster tails and wild boar? That ought to raise a lot of money in Idaho. If they insist on eating why don't they just eat stuff like liver, pigs' feet, tongue, heart and tripe? Those are relatively inexpensive and wouldn't require too much tax. And how about food stamps? Do those on food stamps have to pay food taxes or are they exempt (I confess I have no idea).

Still another problem here in North Idaho is the business of hunting. Lots of people here hunt every year and many of them live pretty much on the results of their hunting. There is no tax on deer, bear, elk, or moose meat. Nor is there any tax on ducks, geese, pheasants, grouse or wild turkeys. That doesn't seem fair. Why should some people be allowed to eat without paying any food taxes at all? This also discriminates against those who are too old or infirm or morally opposed to hunting. Is that fair? And how about fishing? You go out and catch a few trout or bass or walleye and you don't pay any tax. This seems like a really disgusting loophole. People should have to report what they kill and consume and pay taxes. Of course there should be an exemption for those trophy hunters that don't consume what they kill and just leave it to rot. Why should you have to pay a tax on something you don't eat? Then there is the problem of what is considered edible. Like, most everyone eats bear, but I don't think most hunters eat cougar. So somehow we should be able to distinguish those who eat cougar from those who don't. If you eat it, pay taxes. If you don't eat it, well, never mind.

Wolves are a separate matter. I haven't heard anyone say they want to eat wolves. They just want to kill them. Indeed, they can't even wait to kill them. They have already decided that a tag to shoot a wolf should be $9.75 (how they arrived at this figure would make an interesting research project). Our governor boasts that he would like to be the first one to shoot a wolf (at the moment it is illegal to hunt them but he and his ilk can't wait until it is possible). Maybe we should have a law that says it you shoot one you should have to eat it (and pay taxes).

The food tax also discriminates against the obese. If you are unconscionably fat you no doubt eat more that those who are not. Thus you also pay more in food taxes. Is that fair? Why should fat people have to pay more taxes than skinny people? There is also the question of age discrimination. Why should old people pay fewer food taxes than others? Old people don't eat as much food to begin with, so aren't they already getting a tax break? Maybe we could have a system wherein you pay more food taxes on foods that are not good for you than on those that are good for you. Pork ribs would have a big tax, salmon not so much. We could have a special committee down there in Boise to determine which is which. One other observation, if they can tax us for a basic necessity like food, why not tax us for water, or even the air we breath? Good grief! Don't give them any ideas (I'm sure they already have these ideas, they'll be coming along soon under the Bush/Cheney privatization conspiracy. When you hear the word privatization, guard your wallet with your life.

I hope you can see the potentials here for more and more bureacratic nonsense and a continuation of an absolutely ridiculous and discriminatory tax. The possibilities are endless. I have a simple suggestion: GET RID OF THE FOOD TAX COMPLETELY, COME TO YOUR SENSES, STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE POOR. How to do this? Well, how about a tax on services? Poor people don't require as many services. How about an increase in property taxes (no, don't die of heart failure), poor people don't own much property. I'm certain there are other possibilities as well. Whatever you do, don't allow them to kill the King's deer without paying taxes!

Would someone kindly explain to me why our local rag, The Spokesman Review, saw fit to have a front page headline and story entitled "Lobbyist takes Bible to Boise?" Some absolute nitwit ultra rightist fool believes the bible is going to tell us how to run our country?" He actually claims that "If you've got a question about science or even math, they'll (the bible) give you an answer." "Religion can guide all policies, he says," is the subheading. It's bad enough that such people actually exist, but to give them front page coverage is, as far as I now, totally unprecedented (to say nothing of stupid beyond belief). Why do I continue to subscribe to this piece of crap? It's the only game in town.

This fits in nicely with Cheney's claim that the Iraqi "war" is a "remarkable achievement." It certainly is that. The worst foreign policy blunder by far in all of U.S history by the worst gang of war criminals ever assembled in the Western world.

Impeach Cheney

Impeaching Cheney, or better yet, forcing him to resign or else be impeached makes perfect sense. Remember that Spiro Agnew was forced out of the Vice-Presidency for charges that were far less important or significant than what Cheney has been responsible for. Remember Agnew, with his "nattering nabobs of negativism" remarks. He was caught taking illegal bribes for influence - a relative nothing in our current situation of corruption, lying, theft, war profiteering, torture, and treason. Cheney has been wrong on every claim he has made about the "war" in Iraq, including his recent claim that the British withdrawal represents progress. Cheney is the evil Rasputin driving Bush the Stupid to continue his contention that things are going well in Iraq and that victory is just around the corner. He is also guilty of war profiteering big time. It is far past time that he should be held accountable and be driven out of office one way or another. It makes perfect sense for Cheney to go before Bush because that eliminates one of the arguments against impeaching Bush. Get rid of Cheney. Appoint Condi or some other useless Republican and then see what the 2008 election brings. Should be great fun, to say nothing of absolutely necessary if we are to survive another two years of the Bush/Cheney madness. Is there anyone who believes that Cheney was not behind the treasonous outing of Valerie Wilson? Is there anyone who believes Cheney did not plan the takeover of Iraqi oil along with the International Oil Companies? Is there anyone who even listens to him anymore? He is, as people used to say sometimes, "as useless as tits on a boar." In fact, he is worse than useless. He is a cancer on the Administration and should be excised as soon as possible. He wears his slimy dishonesty on his face - just look carefully. Republicans, of course, are too greedy, short-sighted, and stupid to see that Cheney is destroying their party. Hey, maybe impeaching him is not a good idea - let him continue in his destructive ways. If he had even the decency of a cockroach he would resign for "reasons of his health," or maybe, "to spend more time with his family." But no, not Dick the Slimy.

Here at Sandhill it has been snowing all day. We must have 6 to 8 inches of new snow. I don't like it much. But how can I complain when I compare it to what has been happening in the Midwest and the Northeast? Compared with those places this is the banana belt. I guess one of the problems is the fact that we had been lulled into believing we would have an early spring and now have somehow been betrayed. Actually, this happens every year here in North Idaho so I don't know why anyone should be surprised.

I have just finished The Backbone of the World by Frank Clifford. This is an account of a few hardy souls still trying to live and survive along the Continental Divide. These are mostly poor ranchers trying to cling to a way of life that is obviously on its way out. Some interesting characters and some nice descriptions of the country but nothing to keep you up at night. I am thinking of giving up reading simply because there are so many books I cannot even hope to read; this is especially true of books on politics. I bet one could spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just trying to read all the books that are being published on politics. Help me! Help me! Tell me which books are worth reading (if any) and which are just more partisan bullshit.

Finally, I learned today what MSNBC actually stands for. Virtually the entire day today on MSNBC was devoted to the ridiculously unimportant fate Anna Nicole Smith's body and related matters. MUST SEE NOTHING BUT CRAP! Obviously nothing of importance happened anywhere else in the whole world. Oh, I forgot, there was something about Britney once in a while. But relax, be happy, its the American way.

Hillary vs Obama

It has already started, the attacks and counterattacks, and all of the madness that passes these days for political campaigns. Spielberg, Geffen, and others hosted a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, apparently a very successful one where Obama gathered up 1.3 million dollars. Lots of stars and Hollywood bigwigs attended, paying 2300 dollars for their tickets (the limit allowed for such things). So now some are arguing that Hollywood is abandoning the Clintons in favor of Obama. Such nonsense, but that is what it seems to be all about these days - nonsense. If a bunch of Hollywood wealthy people want to pay $2300 to listen to a political candidate they know little about why does that translate into such a big deal. They pay much more than that to attend a prize fight or a concert. 2300 dollars for them is about the same as my paying 10 or 12 bucks to see a movie. Much ado about nothing - except...

for the fact that Geffen, who has always been a big supporter of the Clintons, has announced his support for Obama. And he gave an interview in which he bad-mouthed the Clintons big time. Under the guise of political analysis he also got very personal, accusing the Clintons of lying and such things. He argued, among other things, that the Republicans would allow Hillary to become the Democratic candidate and then, after she was definitely the candidate, they would go after the Clintons personal lives and attributes thus defeating her in the general election. This makes some sense but cannot explain the personal diatribe that, to me, has all the attributes of a vendetta. Geffen apparently was close to the Clintons for years, socializing with them and what not. He sounds somewhat like a jilted lover. He has now said that his interview represented his personal view. I guess that would be that - except...

the Clinton campaign reacted immediately with the demand that Obama distance himself from Geffen's comments and return his money (which of course assumes that Obama was in on this attack and that Geffen was acting on his behalf). If this were so it would mean that Obama is resorting to the dirty campaign tactics that he claims to be trying to eliminate. If the comments indeed merely represent Geffen's personal beliefs why should Obama necessarily be blamed for them? And why should he return the money? Obama has replied that he does not want to be caught up in a dispute between Geffen and the Clintons (a lover's quarrel?). So it stands - except...

for the fact that the Clintons are objecting to this on the grounds that personal attacks on them should be strictly off limits. Thus, according to them, there should be no mention of Bill's impeachment, philandering, their marital relations, and so on. While on the one hand I agree that personal attacks should be off limits, it is obviously the case that Republicans are not going to play along with such ground rules. Given the Republican attack machine, and the notorious foul play of Karl Rove, it would be exceptionally naive for Hillary to believe she will not be subjected to every lie and cheap shot the Republicans can dream up. If her campaign responds immediately to every attack the campaigns will be reduced to the nastiest, bitterest, most miserable of all time. So get ready - it's the American way.

All for naught?

After all these years the Libby trial is finally going to the jury. If he is somehow found innocent the whole episode will be over. But what happens if he is found guilty? Some seem to think that if he is found guilty and sentenced to some truly long and hard time he might break and stop protecting Cheney (there seems to be little doubt that he has all along been protecting Dick the Slimy). Personally, I don't think he'll do any hard time even if he is found guilty. He'll no doubt be sentenced for a short term to some relative country club "prison," and will be assured that the Bush mafia will take care of him and his. But there is already talk of a pardon. If he is found guilty Bush will just give him a Presidential pardon and that will be that. During the course of this trial it has become perfectly obvious that Libby was not in it all by himself. Cheney was apparently directing the whole sordid treasonous episode, Rove was involved, Hadley, McClellan, and even Bush himself. As none of these individuals were on trial, and as it is highly unlikely that Libby will "rat" on any of them (why should he if he is to be pardoned or treated with kid gloves), the prosecutors will have just wasted their time and our money. We can't even argue that a pardon would be unacceptable to the public. As Bush/Cheney's poll ratings are so low already what would they have to lose. They will no doubt just thumb their noses at us (as usual) and the Democrats will do nothing. What is worse, the Republicans will also do nothing as they thrive on lying, cheating, dishonesty, and putting party before country, crime before justice, and deceit before truth. The Republicans could have stopped all of the Bush/Cheney insanity long ago but obviously chose not to, just as they are choosing to do nothing now. I believe (and I certainly hope) this lack of morality, patriotism, and even common decency is going to result in the demise of the Republican party for many years to come. I guess I am a hopeless romantic. I still believe truth and justice will win out in the end. But if there is no truth and beauty...

So what?

How is it that Karl Rove received a copy of Novak's column outing Valerie Plame three days before it was published? Indeed, why did Rove receive a copy of it at all? Does it matter that Rove was punished by Bush's father years before for leaking to Novak? Ah, so what?

Why did Rove receive a copy of Iran's offer to negotiate with the U.S. over their nuclear program, Israel, and etc. What business was this of Rove's? And why does Condi claim she never saw a copy? Aw, so what?

Why does Karl Rove have such a high security clearance? He is merely an advisor to the President, not an elected official with duties that would require such a clearance? Oh, so what?

Is it true that George Dubya told Ariel Sharon that if they captured Osama (or was it Sadam Hussein) he would "screw him in the ass?" So what?

Is it not the case that to this day a known male prostitute was allowed repeated access to the White House when there was no apparent reason for him to be there and it remains unknown who it was that gave permission for these unusual visits? Don't ask, don't tell. So what?

Apparently Dick the Slimy knew that Libby was going to give false testimony to the grand jury. So what?

It appears that George himself (if anyone leaked I want to know about it) Bush might have been involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. Well, golly, so what?

Why did John McCain claim several years ago that he supported Rove vs Wade and now he says it should be repealed? Why did he criticize Fallwell and Robertson before and now is doing everything he can to woo them? Why? Oh, so what?

How is it that the Bush/Cheney administration constantly talks about supporting our troops but cuts funding for veterans care? And how is it that the Walter Reed hospital in Washington DC has apparently turned into a cesspool of horror for our wounded veterans - peeling paint, mouse turds everywhere, filth and neglect, and so on? Oh, so what?

How is it that the House of Representatives voted against Bush's escalation of the "war" in Iraq but the Senate can't even decide to decide whether or not to even discuss it? Well, so what?

On to more important matters. Why did Britney decide to shave her head and get a new tattoo? No one seems to know although her hair is apparently going to be auctioned of for who knows what? Could it be that poor old Britney was losing out in the celebrity wars to the deceased Anna Nicole Smith? Who would want to lose out in the publicity business to a dead woman? Anyway, here is where one might honestly say, SO WHAT?

On Democracy Now today there was a marvelous interview by Amy Goodman with Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists. Hedges has taken apart the ultra right attempt to create a fascist society out of the U.S. and it is most convincing (so say nothing of frightening as hell). Falwell, Dobson, Robertson and others have not been coy about what it is they are up to, and what they are up to is nothing less than taking over control of the U.S. government and making all of us subservient to their warped view of how the world should be. Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, a former theology student at Harvard, and a veteran of years of reporting in the Middle East, has made an extremely interesting case against these fascist monsters and their collaboration with our corporate masters. This is a book that should be required reading for everyone. It doesn't mention (horrors) scrotum even one time.

Apparently Anna Nicole Smith's death and whatever has taken up something like 37% of the MSM in the last few days. The Iraq "war" comes in somewhere around 17%. Britney will no doubt make a bit of a comeback. It's nice to know where our major news sources place their priorities. Does anyone even remember Forgottenistan?

It appears that the Shiite militias have decided to "lay low" while the "surge" is going on. This means, of course, that the violence will abate for a while, thus proving that the surge is working. Will this then provide an excuse for our troops to leave Iraq, claiming success, and saving face for the Bush/Cheney bunch? Am I kidding? Bush/Cheney are going to desert their fourteen permanent bases and their half trillion dollar embassy and leave all that oil to the towel heads? I don't think so. We will never get out of Iraq as long as Bush/Cheney are in charge. And from the look of things, we may never get out even if Hillary or some other Democrat takes over. Where is that amazing creature from the planet kryton when we really need him/her?

Fascinating book

I have just finished a truly fascinating book: The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson. This is the story of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, its planning, execution, success, and enormous impact it made on the United States. Simultaneously, it is the story of one of the worse serial killers in history. A true psychopathological killer who premeditated the murders of an unkown number of people, mostly women, who were attracted to Chicago mostly by the Fair. I have no idea how Larson came up with the idea of juxtaposing these two stories but the result is one of those rare books that you do not want to put down once you have begun. Although I confess I had never thought much about it, I was amazed to learn just how difficult and complex a task it was to plan and construct such a Fair. The success of this almost impossible project put Chicago on the map as one of the world's great cities and many of the things we now take for granted first appeared at this great event. Among other things it made it clear that cities could be much more than the gloomy, filthy, disease-ridden Chicago of the late 1800's.

Well, as predicted, the House voted not to support Bush's surge. It was a victory mostly on partisan lines as a mere 17 Republicans voted for it (there had been predictions of many more). I didn't watch much of it but of course I saw a few excerpts on the news. About 350 of the 400 plus House members felt strongly enough about it to exercise their right to their five minutes. Listening to some of the Republicans who spoke out against it, I began to wonder if they and I were from the same planet, or if we had been exposed to the same information. For example, some of them kept claiming that we could not stop in Iraq until we achieved "victory." Of course they didn't mention what they thought victory would look like. And they seemed to be unaware there would be no victory no matter how long we stayed in Iraq or how many troops we sent there. They seem to be unable to grasp even this basic reality - there is not going to be any victory. There was no time for anyone to really ask just what it was they meant by victory. Perhaps some of them think we are still going to create an American style democracy in that unfortunate country. Maybe some thought we could obtain "stability." They were apparently not considering the latest goal - "relative peace." Then there were those who kept insisting that if we didn't finish the job in Iraq the terrorists (insurgents?) would follow us here. Can't you see them jumping into their ships and aircraft, loading their tanks and howitzers, and invading the U.S? The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! They are going to replace "In God we Trust" with Mohammed is great, and etc. Don't you wonder where we even find such complete idiots? They certainly don't all come from Idaho although we do our part. I confess when I have to listen to some of these Republicans I truly wonder if they are actually sane (maybe it's just the kool-aid).

Bush/Cheney continue to prove they have little or no grasp of reality. Rove has been very quiet of late. Condi is off on another trip, chasing her tail. Democrats talk tough but as yet do very little. Republicans continue to put party above country, Anna Nicole Smith remains unembalmed and her daughter remains without a father. No one can figure out if Obama is black or white, American Idol goes on (I guess), GM and Ford continue to lay off thousands, but the rich get richer every day and the stock market continues to rise. Life, I guess, just goes on. Why worry? Be happy (like me).

Miscellaneous nonsense

Consider some of the current nonsense we are engaged in. The mint is about to release another metal dollar, the Presidential dollar I think is is being called. They previously, as you no doubt remember, introduced the Susan B. Anthony dollar which quickly failed to gain acceptance. Then, more recently, they introduced the Sakajawea dollar which also failed to gain acceptance. In both cases they did not simultaneously do away with the paper dollar (as Canada did when it introduced the popular "loony"). It is perfectly obvious that a metal dollar is not going to catch on so long as the paper dollar exists (this has apparently been demonstrated repeatedly elsewhere as well as in the U.S.). So what will they be doing this time? Introducing the President's dollar without doing away with the paper dollar. So what will happen? It will fail once again. This is as inevitable as the changing of the seasons. I think there may be an ulterior motive involved. As the new dollars, just like the Anthony and Sacajawea dollars, will be a novelty for a time people will collect them and thus take them out of circulation. I'm sure this is happening with the new quarters and nickels as well. If this is not the motive why are they doing something they know will fail?

I saw somewhere today that the new goal of our illegal adventure in Iraq is to be "relative peace." Apparently even stability is too difficult an achievement. Relative peace is good as it can never be precisely defined. I guess if we leave Iraq engaged in civil war that might be considered relative peace compared to what is presently going on in that tortured country. Relative peace. I like it. It has a nice ring to it. I suppose that as Israel is not at the moment attacking Lebanon we can consider that relative peace. No doubt if we could reduce the number of deaths in Iraq this year we could claim relative peace there as well. Relative peace would seem to be a bit of a come down from a fully Democratic society that would be an example for all of the Middle East. But, as Tony Snow, that apparently completely mindless Presidential spokesman assured us, "you can't predict what will happen when you go to "war."

No one seems to be quite certain what Iran is doing in Iraq. At a special more or less secret session in Bagdad three anonymous guys claimed to show us evidence of Iranian arms that were found in Iraq. It was also suggested that high level government officials in Iran were responsible. But then General Pace said no, there was no evidence that the Iranian government was involved. Then today (or maybe it was yesterday, I can't tear myself away from the Anna Nicole Smith case long enough to keep track of the days) Bush himself said we didn't know that higher officials in Iran necessarily knew about what was going on. But we did know for certain that Iranian munitions were being used in Iraq. Imagine that! Someone is helping to arm the Iraqis to defend themselves against an occupying force. This is similar to our objection to Russia selling anti-aircraft guns to Iran (we like our victims to be as helpless as possible). Might the Iraqis have purchased these weapons on the gigantic munitions black market? Might they have acquired them from Hezbolla? Perhaps the Iraqi Santa Claus brought them. No, Bush says they came from an organization that is part of the Iranian government (but he hedges by saying he doesn't know if the Iranian government is aware of this). Wowie, zowie! What intelligence! It's not even as convincing as the evidence they fabricated to attack Iraq. Happily, no one in the Bush administration has enough credibility to get away with this nonsense. And by the way, they know that precisely 170 troops have been killed by these Iranian munitions. How do they know this? I guess they must have interviewed the dead and asked them what, precisely, was the munition that killed them. This whole business has such an overwhelming smell of inauthenticity that one doesn't know whether to laugh or stick one's head in the garbage in the hopes of finding a more pleasant odor. However unfortunate it is, I do not believe ANYTHING that comes from the Bush/Cheney den of vipers.

Just out of idle curiosity, does anyone ever actually pay attention to tv commercials? That is, do they ever consider what is being claimed in these basically offensive interruptions? I saw recently an ad for something called Boniva. I don't recall even what Boniva is, or is for. But what got me was the claim by the woman in the ad that her friend had to set aside one day a week to take her pill (whereas with Boniva she only had to take it once a month). Think of that! She had to set aside one day a week to take a pill that probably took less than 10 seconds to swallow. What a burden! What a terrible inconvenience! Thank god for Boniva (whatever it is). But don't let me get started on advertising.

Disgusting Democrats, Reprehensible Republicans

First, I am truly pleased to learn that Anna Nicole Smith's body is not going anywhere soon. I was really worried about that.

As near as I can make out Feith's excuse for his indecent behavior has to do with his argument there is nothing wrong (or illegal) about people reviewing Intelligence assessments. I guess one might agree that is true. However, when you not only review the intelligence but then change and distort it to fit your preconceived idea of what it should reveal, and then pass that on as THE intelligence to your superiors, and they then act on it as if it is true, it would seem to be a different matter indeed. And, when your office exists for no other purpose than second-guessing intelligence to make it fit what you desire, I should think the question of legality is simply moot. This is not complicated. It is perfectly obvious this is what happened. Feith's office insisted there was a relationship between Sadam and the terrorists even though the CIA intelligence knew that was not so. And Cheney repeatedly insisted there was such a relationship even though there was no evidence of such a relationship. When Feith's office presented the CIA with their interpretation of the evidence the CIA objected to 50% of their claims. They offered to footnote their objections. Feith's interpretation was forwarded with no footnotes included. I guess this is what was meant when one of the neocons insisted that they were creating their own reality. They have done the same thing with scientific evidence. I guess there is nothing illegal about reinterpreting scientific evidence about global warming, or paying scientists to argue against global warming. BUT THERE OUGHT TO BE!

The Democrats, now in control of the House, have decided to spend three or four days debating a non-binding resolution opposing the "surge" (which, of course, has already begun). Bush has announced that he is aware of the debate and doesn't really care what they do (I mean, it is non-binding and he is going ahead with his plans anyway). How many more American and Iraqi lives will be lost during this four day complete waste of time? Not content with this dismal procrastinating they have now developed a strategy of "slowly bleeding" the administrations ability to continue their "war." Slowly bleeding our troops while they sit in their comfortable air-conditioned offices and cowardly refuse to take meaningful and clear action to bring this stupid, unnecessary "war" to a swift conclusion doesn't seem to matter to them. After all, our troops volunteered to be slowly bled to death for the benefit of Bush/Cheney, Halliburton, Exxon, and whoever. As far as I am concerned both the House and Senate are simply beneath contempt. They are every bit as complicit in their war crimes as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice and the rest of the neocons. What can one say except STOP THE FOOTDRAGGING AND BULLSHIT AND DO SOMETHING! DO IT NOW, NOT NEXT WEEK OR NEXT MONTH OR NEXT YEAR. NOW!

Democrats, it is said, are afraid to cut off funding because they fear they will be accused of not supporting the troops. What nonsense. Who are they afraid of, the 27% of loony Americans who still support Bush/Cheney? Bringing the troops home from a lost cause, after they have performed splendidly with faulty equipment and excruciatingly poor leadership, is not not supporting the troops. It is quite the contrary, supporting them in the best way possible. They have done what they could, done what was expected of them, they cannot be expected to perform miracles. They cannot make the Sunnis and Shiites like each other. They cannot bring about a political solution on their own. There is no military solution for the problems in Iraq (or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Israel, or Palestine, or Syria or anywhere in the Middle East). The neocons dream of controlling the Middle East, of empire, of being able to impose a solution to long standing problems at the barrel of a gun, is truly a pipe dream.

What is wrong with us? In some cases there are very commonsense solutions to some of our problems. You want to solve the problem of overcrowding in our prisons? Legalize marijuana. You want to conserve energy? Turn off all the damn lights in our skyscrapers at night. You want to reduce the cost of drugs? Stop the pharmanceuticals from their incessant advertising of drugs we don't need (and even those we do need). You want to conserve oil? Make the automakers build more efficent cars and trucks. You want to save the salmon? Breach some of the dams. You want to stop global warming? Cut down on carbon emissions. I acknowledge these are not all as simple as they may appear. But they are all eminently possible if we just have the will to do them.

Putin is right. The U.S. has grossly overstepped its bounds. The world is suffering for it. It didn't begin with the Bush/Cheney administration. But under their stewardship it has for the first time reached genuine crisis proportions. They should either resign or be impeached. Even more appropriate, perhaps they should be committed. The Republicans have it within their power to do something to stop Bush/Cheney. They are more interested in power than patriotism or country. History is not going to treat them kindly. They don't care, like Bush, they will all be dead. What a marvelous attitude. Good for our corporate masters if not for the country. "Get rich, sleep 'til noon, and screw 'em all."

Hillary

Hillary Clinton is not someone I can support for President. First, she is the DLC candidate. The DLC is simply the Republican wing of the Democratic party. Second, she is a warmonger. She sounds like Bush and McCain. "No option is off the table." If she, or any of these other warmongering types, were interested in solving problems in the Middle East, the first thing they should say is military action against Iran is off the table. Third, she is an ardent and apparently uncritical supporter of Israel, a rogue nation involved in genocidal actions against the Palestinians. Fourth, she is apparently the darling of the corporations that will control the elections. Remember, she was on the Board of Directors of Wal Mart (maybe she still is, for all I know). Rupert Murdoch arranged a fundraiser for her. She has far more money than any other candidate, money that did not come in five and ten dollar donations, but, rather, from those power brokers who know what they are up to. I believe she has already been selected as their candidate for the election. I believe they think a Republican cannot be elected in 2008 and, if so, what better than a Republican lite who is already on their payroll? Sorry to be so cynical but I truly believe this is what it is all about. This is not something I like. At one time I was a true Hillary Supporter, gave her money, and whatever. But no more. For me, she has blown it big time. I simply do not believe, among other things, that the most important thing in our foreign policy is keeping Iran from having a bomb. While I believe Iran might want a bomb I don't believe they are very close to having one. Even more importantly, I don't believe if they had a bomb they would use it for anything other than defense. Iranians are intelligent, wonderful, poetic people, surrounded by enemies that all have nuclear bombs. If they want a bomb it would be perfectly reasonable. There is apparently no real evidence they even want a bomb. To continue to threaten them with military action is totally non-productive. We need to engage them diplomatically (a concept apparently entirely foreign to Bush/Cheney).

Now Bush/Cheney are trying desperately to link Iran to the troubles in Iraq. In a private and more or less secret meeting, directed by individuals who refused to use their names, evidence was supposedly presented proving that Iran was furnishing weapons to certain of the Iraqis. They claimed that serial numbers and descriptions of these weapons proved they came from Iran and that high level persons in the Iranian government were involved. General Pace brought them down to earth by pointing out there was no evidence whatsoever that the Iranian government was involved, even if the weapons came from Iran (they could have been purchased on the world wide munitions market, come from Hezbolla, or whatever). Furthermore, as the descriptions were in English, it would be more likely than not that these weapons were produced for the worldwide market rather than explicitly for Iraq. In any case, after their obvious lies about Iraq, most people are not much in a mood to believe them.

Which leads us to Feith who clearly cherry picked and reinterpreted intelligence reports to make a case for attacking Iraq. This is so blatant as to be indisputable. And, of course, Cheney was behind it. Now they are saying that yes, they did it, but they did nothing illegal by making their own interpretations of the intelligence. Wonderful! They distorted the evidence in favor of starting an illegal and unnecessary "war" in which hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, and they have the effrontery to say they did nothing illegal? These people are worse than war criminals, they are monsters who lack even the basic rudiments of humanity. Feith, like Bush, apparently does not have the brains God gave a horse's ass. Cheney, lying, slimy creature that he is, from somewhere in the dark underground, does the Devil's work.

Wasted lives

How can you tell someone that their childrens' lives were simply wasted? Obama apparently used the term with respect to the troops we have lost in Iraq. Then, having realized what he said, he apologized. No one, least of all a presidential candidate, wants to insult or denigrate the ultimate sacrifice someone paid for fighting for their country. I don't want to think of all these lives of our fine young people as wasted. But what has been accomplished by Bush's "war" in Iraq. His "war" based entirely upon lies. There were no WMD's. There was no connection between Sadam and the terrorists. Democracy has certainly not spread in the Middle East. Sadam was taken down only to be replaced by a situation that is worse than it was while he was still in power. We haven't even managed to steal the oil, which is what it was all about in the first place. In short, we have sacrificed more than 3000 of our finest young people, and seriously damaged for life probably some 20,000 or more, and accomplished nothing. I guess it is up to each of us to decide whether lives were wasted or not.

Rudy Giuliani gave a speech somewhere or other. Apparently he spoke for some 45 minutes. He spent much of that time, I heard, praising Bush as a war president. I submit that that, in and of itself, removes him from serious contention for the presidency. He's obviously as big a nut case as his chief rival, the notorious warmonger, McCain. I guess they are both competing for the 27% of Americans who claim to still support Bush/Cheney.

Wednesday will be Valentine's Day, next to Halloween, my least favorite event of the year. Does anyone other than card, candy, and floral makers really believe in this nonsense? I still remember when I was in grade school and we had to give valentines to each other, cheap little pieces of paper expressing our love and devotion to those we despised as well as those we liked (we had to give valentines to everyone without exception, no matter what we actually felt about them). As far as I know this absurd practice continues right up to the present.

The wild turkeys are starting to breed. At least I think they are. There were at least three toms in the back yard this morning with their plumage displayed for all to see. And the hens have been acting strangely for the last few days. I fear I will be witness to a genuine turkeycide later this spring. Fish and Game has reportedly said not to bother complaining about the turkeys unless you have 70 or more. If the weather continues as mild as it has been for the past few days we may actually achieve that number. Where are the coyotes, wolves, cougars, and other predators when you need them?