Is it just me or do other people think Romney might not have a full deck? I mean, he has said at least three things I know of that strike me as just plain stupid. First, his claim to have been a hunter all his life when it was a blatant lie. The only reason for that particular lie had to be to try to gather votes that he clearly would not have deserved. Second, he blurted out that we should double guantanamo. This was not a lie, merely a statement so stupid as to have been aborted before it was said. Again, the only motivation for such a weird statement had to be trying to gather votes from the other Republican lunatics. Third, he has just now announced that his five sons are contributing to the war effort by supporting him for President (because they think I would be a good President). Now it's bad enough that his five military age boys haven't served in the military (which, with an all volunteer military, is certainly their right), but to gratuitously claim they are contributing by campaigning for him is simply absurd (no, I mean stupid). I am ignoring the fact that he has been a genuine flip-flopper who claims that he has simply changed his mind. Of course he changed his mind - after he found out which way the wind was blowing. In short, I think he's an obvious liar and a not very bright one at that.
I am in Seattle again. I lived for several years in Seattle back in the 1950's and early 60's. I loved it then. I don't like it much now. It is far too crowded. There is too much traffic. It is expensive. The various powers that be must have met and decided to have a contest to see who could build the ugliest high-rise for the Seattle skyline. Seattlites have developed the strangest walking habits I have ever seen anywhere. There is no attempt to facilitate pedestrian traffic by walking on the right or even trying to help other pedestrians find their way. Seattlites just walk wherever they damn please. If you don't walk defensively you are fair game to be knocked down and run over. This is not helped nowadays by the fact that many of them are so intent on text-messaging or reading while walking they have no idea where they are going. I gather they have for years had a habit of spitting their gum on the sidewalks so that now there seems to be a hundred years of gum added to the concrete. I guess the things I do like are the fact that Seattle continues to be beautiful with greenery abounding everywhere and the people dress and look funny, thus giving the city the appearance of a kind of European cosmopolitanism. And of course there is great seafood and many fine restaraunts (if you can afford them). Back in "my day" Seattle still had a kind of small town flavor even though it wasn't really small and things were much more manageable (and affordable). Ah, the mythical "good old days."
LKBIQ:
"Strange object sighted in the sky. Said to be the sun."
Seattle headline when my mother attended the University of Washington (a long time ago).
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
What to make of Hillary
I said quite a long time ago that Hillary would be the Democratic candidate for President, that it was already a done deal as the Corporate powers have decided a Republican can't get elected in 2008 and Hillary, being Republican lite (at least) would be their best bet. It appears to me at the moment that is what is happening. Murdoch throwing fundraisers for her, Fortune magazine featuring her on the cover as the Corporate candidate, and so on. She did nothing to dispell this view of her by announcing the other day that she would continue to take money from the lobbys (even though she was roundly criticized for this by both Edwards and Obama). She defended herself by arguing that many lobbys represented real people (nurses, social workers, etc.). She also claims that if you look at her record for the last 35 years there is no indication that she bent to the influence of Drug companies, etc. I don't know how true this is but there has to be some truth to it. As we all know opinions about Hillary are very far apart. Just today I saw one Veteran praising her knowledge of the military and singing her virtues. A second one, who apparently worked for Bill Clinton for a couple of years, and who claims to know Hillary well, accuses her of being a pathological liar and a Dove in Hawk's clothing.
I don't know what to think. I was a great fan of Hillary's when Bill Clinton was President and she was trying to work on universal health care. I thought she handled his impeachment with dignity and common sense. Then when I learned she had served on the Board of WalMart I began to lose respect. Bill Clinton and his administration were certainly not very liberal in their doings and brought us NAFTA, among other things (welfare reform, etc.). So what to make of Hillary? She is currently leading the other Democratic candidates by a large margin. She has so far made no significant mistakes. She comes across as exceptionally knowledgeable, well-prepared, and does not get flustered under pressure. On the basis of her performances so far I believe she has shown she is in fact the superior candidate. I have said all along that I do not want her to be the candidate. However, the other candidates, in my judgment, don't match up. Obama comes the closest But he is really no match for Hillary's experience and knowledge of other world leaders. I keep hoping that Gore will enter later this year. If he does I believe he would win the Presidency easily (he certainly should anyway). But if Hillary continues to be so successful I doubt that Gore would enter (of course he might no enter in any case). Probably the single most important argument against Hillary is that she is a polarizing figure (no doubt about that) and that she cannot win the general election. But think about it. If faced with the choice of Hillary or Guiliani, or Hillary and Romney or McCain, or Thompson, who will you vote for. The same thing holds true for the argument that a woman can't be elected. You might argue that this will come down to a Hobson's choice. I don't think so.
LKBIQ:
"Come seven, come eleven! Baby needs a new pair of shoes."
Anonymous crapshooter
I don't know what to think. I was a great fan of Hillary's when Bill Clinton was President and she was trying to work on universal health care. I thought she handled his impeachment with dignity and common sense. Then when I learned she had served on the Board of WalMart I began to lose respect. Bill Clinton and his administration were certainly not very liberal in their doings and brought us NAFTA, among other things (welfare reform, etc.). So what to make of Hillary? She is currently leading the other Democratic candidates by a large margin. She has so far made no significant mistakes. She comes across as exceptionally knowledgeable, well-prepared, and does not get flustered under pressure. On the basis of her performances so far I believe she has shown she is in fact the superior candidate. I have said all along that I do not want her to be the candidate. However, the other candidates, in my judgment, don't match up. Obama comes the closest But he is really no match for Hillary's experience and knowledge of other world leaders. I keep hoping that Gore will enter later this year. If he does I believe he would win the Presidency easily (he certainly should anyway). But if Hillary continues to be so successful I doubt that Gore would enter (of course he might no enter in any case). Probably the single most important argument against Hillary is that she is a polarizing figure (no doubt about that) and that she cannot win the general election. But think about it. If faced with the choice of Hillary or Guiliani, or Hillary and Romney or McCain, or Thompson, who will you vote for. The same thing holds true for the argument that a woman can't be elected. You might argue that this will come down to a Hobson's choice. I don't think so.
LKBIQ:
"Come seven, come eleven! Baby needs a new pair of shoes."
Anonymous crapshooter
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The concept of the soul
As an avowed atheist, do I believe in the concept of the soul and an afterlife? The brief, immediate answer, is "no." Perhaps it should be, I don't think so. I guess it might depend upon how one defines a soul. I quoted this early definition previously on this blog, but let me quote it again for starters:
"It is a thin unsubstantial human image, in its nature a sort of vapour, film, or shadow; the cause of life and thought in the individual it animates, independently possessing the personal consciousness and volition of its corporeal owner; past or present; capable of leaving the body far behind, to flash swiftly from place to place; mostly impalpable and invisible, yet also manifesting physical power, and especially appearing to men waking or asleep as a phantom separate from the body of which it bears the likeness; continuing to exist and appear to men after the death of that body; able to enter into, possess, and act in the bodies of other men, of animals, and even of things." (Sir Edward Burnett Tylor 1903, quoted in Langness, The Study of Culture, 2005:27).
One is tempted to add, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. I have often wondered if Sir Edward meant this to be a definition that all people, including Western-Europeans, believed in, or if he meant that only "primitive" peoples believed this way. I suspect the latter, but I do not know what Sir Edward thought a "civilized" soul might be like. I confess I do not know either. I guess that is my problem.
If one believes in the concept of a soul, then one also has to be concerned about what happens to it upon the death of its corporeal body. That means one must have some conception of an afterlife. These two beliefs obviously go hand in hand, unless you believe the soul just disappears at death. But if you believed that, there would be little point in having a soul in the first place. Of course you could believe it moved about in dreams and affected life until people die and it then just vanishes. I don't know of any culture on earth that believes that. No, if you believe in souls you must also believe they go somewhere at death. Do I believe they go to "heaven" where they join the angels and sit around on clouds playing harps? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that if you are bad during your lifetime your soul descends into purgatory where it is tortured to eternity? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that if you are a martyr and go to heaven (or paradise, somewhere like that) there will be 72 virgins waiting for you? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that when you die your soul goes to "The Happy Hunting Ground" where buffalo abound? No, I don't believe that either. Do I believe that when you die your soul goes to "Frenonua," which the New Guinea Highlanders assured me was somewhere out there beyond the horizon where you lived life much the same as while alive, raising lots of pigs, marrying, and having children? No. Finally, do I believe, as many peoples do, that the soul after death becomes a ghost and hangs around pestering the living in one way or another? Alas, I don't believe that as I simply do not believe in ghosts.
I guess my most basic problem is that I just don't believe in supernatural beings of any kind, unless, perhaps like Freud, they might be mental projections of parental figures or some such thing. You know, if your parents are nurturant and good to you, you will have beliefs in positive and helpful nurturant deities, whereas if your parents or parental surrogates are mean and punishing, your perception of the deities will be as punishing figures that have to be constantly placated with prayers or gifts or something. If I believed in this approach to the supernatural it would be a confession that supernatural beings are not real but, rather, just figments of the human psyche. Thus, as I don't know what to believe, I don't believe in any of it. The best I can do, following some American Indians, is to believe in The Great Mystery. This exceedingly general view of things supernatural seems to do me just fine. I don't exactly worship The Great Mystery, but I certainly stand in awe of it.
Lewis Henry Morgan once said of religion:
"The growth of religious ideas is environed with such intrinsic difficulties that it may never receive a perfectly satisfactory exposition. Religion deals so largely with the imaginative and emotional nature, and consequently with such uncertain elements of knowledge, that all primitive religions are grotesque and to some extent unintelligible." (Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society 1877:5).
If you strike out the adjective "primitive" this quotation pretty well expresses my view of all organized religion.
Whatever bitterness and cynicysm I might have has nothing to do with believing in souls or supernaturals. It has everything to do with observing human behavior for more than seventy years. The current world events certainly do nothing to make me believe that human nature is anything to be pleased or happy about. Abel Posse once said that humans were put on earth simply to mortify the animals. It seems to me he might well be right.
If Dennis Kucinich were not 5' 4" tall and a vegan he might well someday be President. He is far better than any other Democratic candidate and could probably be trusted to do what he says he will do, not something you can count on from the rest of the field. Go Dennis!
LKBIQ:
"You have no right at the cannon's mouth to impose on an unwilling people your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution and your notions of freedom and notions of what is good."
George Frisbie Hoar, Republican of Massachusetts, during the Philippine-American war.
"It is a thin unsubstantial human image, in its nature a sort of vapour, film, or shadow; the cause of life and thought in the individual it animates, independently possessing the personal consciousness and volition of its corporeal owner; past or present; capable of leaving the body far behind, to flash swiftly from place to place; mostly impalpable and invisible, yet also manifesting physical power, and especially appearing to men waking or asleep as a phantom separate from the body of which it bears the likeness; continuing to exist and appear to men after the death of that body; able to enter into, possess, and act in the bodies of other men, of animals, and even of things." (Sir Edward Burnett Tylor 1903, quoted in Langness, The Study of Culture, 2005:27).
One is tempted to add, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. I have often wondered if Sir Edward meant this to be a definition that all people, including Western-Europeans, believed in, or if he meant that only "primitive" peoples believed this way. I suspect the latter, but I do not know what Sir Edward thought a "civilized" soul might be like. I confess I do not know either. I guess that is my problem.
If one believes in the concept of a soul, then one also has to be concerned about what happens to it upon the death of its corporeal body. That means one must have some conception of an afterlife. These two beliefs obviously go hand in hand, unless you believe the soul just disappears at death. But if you believed that, there would be little point in having a soul in the first place. Of course you could believe it moved about in dreams and affected life until people die and it then just vanishes. I don't know of any culture on earth that believes that. No, if you believe in souls you must also believe they go somewhere at death. Do I believe they go to "heaven" where they join the angels and sit around on clouds playing harps? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that if you are bad during your lifetime your soul descends into purgatory where it is tortured to eternity? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that if you are a martyr and go to heaven (or paradise, somewhere like that) there will be 72 virgins waiting for you? No, I don't believe that. Do I believe that when you die your soul goes to "The Happy Hunting Ground" where buffalo abound? No, I don't believe that either. Do I believe that when you die your soul goes to "Frenonua," which the New Guinea Highlanders assured me was somewhere out there beyond the horizon where you lived life much the same as while alive, raising lots of pigs, marrying, and having children? No. Finally, do I believe, as many peoples do, that the soul after death becomes a ghost and hangs around pestering the living in one way or another? Alas, I don't believe that as I simply do not believe in ghosts.
I guess my most basic problem is that I just don't believe in supernatural beings of any kind, unless, perhaps like Freud, they might be mental projections of parental figures or some such thing. You know, if your parents are nurturant and good to you, you will have beliefs in positive and helpful nurturant deities, whereas if your parents or parental surrogates are mean and punishing, your perception of the deities will be as punishing figures that have to be constantly placated with prayers or gifts or something. If I believed in this approach to the supernatural it would be a confession that supernatural beings are not real but, rather, just figments of the human psyche. Thus, as I don't know what to believe, I don't believe in any of it. The best I can do, following some American Indians, is to believe in The Great Mystery. This exceedingly general view of things supernatural seems to do me just fine. I don't exactly worship The Great Mystery, but I certainly stand in awe of it.
Lewis Henry Morgan once said of religion:
"The growth of religious ideas is environed with such intrinsic difficulties that it may never receive a perfectly satisfactory exposition. Religion deals so largely with the imaginative and emotional nature, and consequently with such uncertain elements of knowledge, that all primitive religions are grotesque and to some extent unintelligible." (Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society 1877:5).
If you strike out the adjective "primitive" this quotation pretty well expresses my view of all organized religion.
Whatever bitterness and cynicysm I might have has nothing to do with believing in souls or supernaturals. It has everything to do with observing human behavior for more than seventy years. The current world events certainly do nothing to make me believe that human nature is anything to be pleased or happy about. Abel Posse once said that humans were put on earth simply to mortify the animals. It seems to me he might well be right.
If Dennis Kucinich were not 5' 4" tall and a vegan he might well someday be President. He is far better than any other Democratic candidate and could probably be trusted to do what he says he will do, not something you can count on from the rest of the field. Go Dennis!
LKBIQ:
"You have no right at the cannon's mouth to impose on an unwilling people your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution and your notions of freedom and notions of what is good."
George Frisbie Hoar, Republican of Massachusetts, during the Philippine-American war.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Censure?
Bush/Cheney and their neocon thugs have committed war crimes almost beyond belief. They pre-emptively attacked a sovereign nation that was no threat to anyone, a war crime of the first order. They have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mostly civilians, another war crime. They have authorized and employed torture, hidden captives from the Red Cross, shamelessly indulged in war profiteering, lied to Congress and the American people, repeatedly violated the Constitution, created a genuine humanitarian disaster in Iraq, to say nothing of a civil war, and wish to lead our nation into a permanent war to further the profits of their corporate friends. They insist on continuing this useless, illegal, immoral, and inconscionable "war," that they brought on themselves. The Democrats now say they are going to "censure" them. Geez, what do you think they might do when Bush/Cheney do something really bad? I don't think censure goes far enough. They should at least have the palms of their hands slapped with a ruler, or better yet, get a few whacks from a paddle on their bottoms. Feingold, who is apparently leading this attempt, has said it will prove that Democrats "stood up to this administration." It will do nothing of the kind. It will simply confirm that our contemporary Democrats in the House and Senate are the most gutless, cowardly, spineless, self-serving, phony, ridiculous legislators ever to hold elected office.
And by the way, they have just allowed Bush/Cheney to continue their illegal spying on whomever they choose with Alberto Gonzales being the one to decide about it. Alberto Gonzales! You know, the Attorney General that has just been widely criticized by members of both parties, has absolutely no credibility, has been repeatedly asked to resign, and so on. I guess the Democrats aren't aware of this? How on earth could they have capitulated on such a completely wrong-headed proposal? Are they all nuts? Bonkers? Or did they just want to make sure nothing interfered with their vacation? This is wrong, so wrong it is absolutely sickening. If there is ever to be a third party, count me in. I've been a Democrat all my life but this is too much even for me. A pox on both of their houses. Never mind this chicken-hearted censure, I want Bush/Cheney/Gonzales IMPEACHED! And I want it NOW!
My son is predicting that Romney will be the Republican candidate. I am beginning to believe he may be right. Not because Romney is the best candidate, or even a decent candidate, but because the others are so hopelessly wrong. Guiliani is nothing but a first-class phony who knows nothing about foreign policy and not much more about terrorism which is his only campagin theme. McCain is imploding and will soon have to give up. Thompson, the "great white hope," is imploding before he has even announced his candidacy, a couple of the others are religious types who don't believe in evolution, and the rest are not well known enough to matter. We know that Romney is a liar who will say anything to get the nomination, "we should double guantanamo," for example, or "I've been a hunter all my life." He is the personification of "None of the above." Oh yeah, he's a Mormon but he won't tell whether or not he wears that special Mormon underwear, and he hasn't yet claimed to have a direct line to the Angel Moroni. He says he's not running as a Mormon so you see he's just a Mormon running. I guess that's different. Personally, I don't care if he's a Mormon or not, he's a liar and a flip-flopper and, above all, a REPUBLICAN (I fear those things are synonymous).
LKBIQ:
"The present chaotic stage of humanity is not, as some wishfully maintain, caused by a lack of faith but by too much unreasoning faith and too many conflicting faiths within these boundaries where such faith should have no place. The chaos is one that only responsible human knowledge can reduce to order."
George Gaylord Simpson
And by the way, they have just allowed Bush/Cheney to continue their illegal spying on whomever they choose with Alberto Gonzales being the one to decide about it. Alberto Gonzales! You know, the Attorney General that has just been widely criticized by members of both parties, has absolutely no credibility, has been repeatedly asked to resign, and so on. I guess the Democrats aren't aware of this? How on earth could they have capitulated on such a completely wrong-headed proposal? Are they all nuts? Bonkers? Or did they just want to make sure nothing interfered with their vacation? This is wrong, so wrong it is absolutely sickening. If there is ever to be a third party, count me in. I've been a Democrat all my life but this is too much even for me. A pox on both of their houses. Never mind this chicken-hearted censure, I want Bush/Cheney/Gonzales IMPEACHED! And I want it NOW!
My son is predicting that Romney will be the Republican candidate. I am beginning to believe he may be right. Not because Romney is the best candidate, or even a decent candidate, but because the others are so hopelessly wrong. Guiliani is nothing but a first-class phony who knows nothing about foreign policy and not much more about terrorism which is his only campagin theme. McCain is imploding and will soon have to give up. Thompson, the "great white hope," is imploding before he has even announced his candidacy, a couple of the others are religious types who don't believe in evolution, and the rest are not well known enough to matter. We know that Romney is a liar who will say anything to get the nomination, "we should double guantanamo," for example, or "I've been a hunter all my life." He is the personification of "None of the above." Oh yeah, he's a Mormon but he won't tell whether or not he wears that special Mormon underwear, and he hasn't yet claimed to have a direct line to the Angel Moroni. He says he's not running as a Mormon so you see he's just a Mormon running. I guess that's different. Personally, I don't care if he's a Mormon or not, he's a liar and a flip-flopper and, above all, a REPUBLICAN (I fear those things are synonymous).
LKBIQ:
"The present chaotic stage of humanity is not, as some wishfully maintain, caused by a lack of faith but by too much unreasoning faith and too many conflicting faiths within these boundaries where such faith should have no place. The chaos is one that only responsible human knowledge can reduce to order."
George Gaylord Simpson
Sunday, August 05, 2007
For the record
It has come to my attention that someone (perhaps more than one) out there labors under the misapprehension that I have something against male homosexuals. So, for the record, let me state once and for all that I have noting whatsoever against male homosexuals or female homosexuals either. Indeed, I believe they should be allowed to be married, at least in civil ceremonies, should they desire. If various churches don't want to let them marry in their churches I guess that is their business. I find most religious beliefs and practices so bizarre I assume their beliefs about homosexuals are simply a part of their totality of strange beliefs and practices.
I think the genesis of this misapprehension about my beliefs stems from the fact that I have been fascinated by the strange case of Gannon/Guckert. Recall that Gannon (Guckert) was passed off as a legitimate White House News Correspondent when he in fact had no qualifications for such a post. He was obviously acting as a shill for the Bush/Cheney administration, asking misleading questions at the right moments and so on. This pandering for the administration finally became so blatant he came under the press corps radar. This was only the beginning of this fascinating tale. It turned out that Gannon/Guckert was a known male homosexual prostitute, "a strictly on-top guy," according to his own ads, which featured nude photos of him in a gay magazine. If his presence on the press corps was not strange enough it also turned out that he was given access to the White House on many occasions when there was no ostensible reason for him to be there. He did not always sign in or out properly, he stayed for various amounts of time, and seemed to have priviledges not granted to other reporters. No one knows where he spent this time in the White House or with whom. In order for this to happen he would have to have had the support of someone very powerful or influential in the White House. We do not know to this day who was sponsoring him or why. I have always found this strange affair completely fascinating and I would certainly like to know the answers to (1)who was his sponsor, (2)where did he spend his time when in the White House, 3) who was he with, and (4) what was the purpose of his visit. I certainly do not believe that wanting some answers to this puzzling situation make me in any way anti-gay. I do not understand how the party that spent more than forty million dollars obsessing over Bill Clinton's penis could simply ignore these questions - but they have (do) since the beginning. Someone very powerful kicked this under the rug and everyone acted as though it didn't even happen. I would like to know who it was (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to why).
The grapes are not yet ripe but the turkeys are already at them. In spite of my best efforts the deer were in the garden again. It remains much hotter than normal and for a much longer period of time. The garden suffers. We suffer. Life at Sandhill is reduced to a battle between us and nature. Nature is winning.
LKBIQ:
"It is no use dealing with illusions and make-believes. We must look at the facts. The world...is too dangerous for anyone to be able to afford to nurse illusions. We must look at realities."
Sir Winston Churchill
I think the genesis of this misapprehension about my beliefs stems from the fact that I have been fascinated by the strange case of Gannon/Guckert. Recall that Gannon (Guckert) was passed off as a legitimate White House News Correspondent when he in fact had no qualifications for such a post. He was obviously acting as a shill for the Bush/Cheney administration, asking misleading questions at the right moments and so on. This pandering for the administration finally became so blatant he came under the press corps radar. This was only the beginning of this fascinating tale. It turned out that Gannon/Guckert was a known male homosexual prostitute, "a strictly on-top guy," according to his own ads, which featured nude photos of him in a gay magazine. If his presence on the press corps was not strange enough it also turned out that he was given access to the White House on many occasions when there was no ostensible reason for him to be there. He did not always sign in or out properly, he stayed for various amounts of time, and seemed to have priviledges not granted to other reporters. No one knows where he spent this time in the White House or with whom. In order for this to happen he would have to have had the support of someone very powerful or influential in the White House. We do not know to this day who was sponsoring him or why. I have always found this strange affair completely fascinating and I would certainly like to know the answers to (1)who was his sponsor, (2)where did he spend his time when in the White House, 3) who was he with, and (4) what was the purpose of his visit. I certainly do not believe that wanting some answers to this puzzling situation make me in any way anti-gay. I do not understand how the party that spent more than forty million dollars obsessing over Bill Clinton's penis could simply ignore these questions - but they have (do) since the beginning. Someone very powerful kicked this under the rug and everyone acted as though it didn't even happen. I would like to know who it was (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to why).
The grapes are not yet ripe but the turkeys are already at them. In spite of my best efforts the deer were in the garden again. It remains much hotter than normal and for a much longer period of time. The garden suffers. We suffer. Life at Sandhill is reduced to a battle between us and nature. Nature is winning.
LKBIQ:
"It is no use dealing with illusions and make-believes. We must look at the facts. The world...is too dangerous for anyone to be able to afford to nurse illusions. We must look at realities."
Sir Winston Churchill
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Democrats cave again
Sixteen Senate Democrats voted with the Republicans to give Bush/Cheney even more power to spy on us, thus confirming again they are the most lily-livered, spineless, cowardly, disgusting bunch of hopeless morons that ever pretended to be Senators. One Republican Senator reported that he was really pleased because now he could go to bed and sleep without worrying about terrorists. Do you believe that any of these dismal bastards really worry at lot about being attacked by terrorists? If they worry or think about it at all, they probably worry more about being struck by lightning.
Here at home in Idaho I find myself facing a true dilemna (for me, anyway). Larry LaRocco is running for Craig's Senate seat (whether Craig decides to run again or not). I view Craig as utterly useless as a Senator (probably for anything else as well). He always votes with Bush/Cheney, or at least 99.9% of the time. He is an anti-environmentalist who believes it is more important to ship a few more potatoes than to save the salmon, thinks ranchers should be able to graze their stock any damn place they choose, regardless of the consequences, would never even consider breeching the dams no matter what, and so on. So I should be enthusiastic about LaRocco, but I'm not. I seldom worry about single issues but in LaRocco's case it has to do with something of absolutely fundamental importance - nuclear energy. He's for it. I'm positively opposed to it. I believe that anyone who promotes nuclear energy has nothing but contempt for life on our planet. Sure, the planet itself will survive, but what of all forms of life, human and otherwise? Nuclear waste has a shelf life of thousands upon thousands of years. We don't know what to do with it and so far it doesn't look like there are any viable options. Sending it to Russia, as the French are doing, is not a solution. Burying it in Nevada is not a solution. So, until someone comes up with a solution I am adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. I do not see how, in good conscience, I could vote for Larry LaRocco. But of course I could never vote for Craig. It looks like I just may not vote for either of them.
Larry Grant, on the other hand, is a fine candidate with his head screwed on properly. He's opposed to nuclear energy. Running against Bill Sali, who has proven himself even more useless than Craig (if that's possible) apparently just votes against most everything, usually along with a very small minority of cranks and nuts. He has to do the bidding of the Club for Growth which gave him most all of the money he used to get elected. The Club for Growth doesn't want any government. I guess their motto is, fix your own bridge, educate your own child (we need more cannonball makers and farriers and brain tanners), and so on. There was a letter supporting Sali in our local paper last week. The writer claimed he was an "Oklahoma." In all fairness to the writer that mistake was probably our local paper's. Their editing standards are somewhat below those of Junior High. In any case, why is someone from Oklahoma writing on behalf of Bill Sali? I haven't seen any local letters of support. Sali received very little money or support from people in Idaho. How did he get elected? Because he's a Republican, or at least pretends to be. Here in North Idaho if you're a Republican you can be otherwise completely brain dead and still get elected. Sali is a perfect case in point. Craig is not far behind. Larry Grant is as fine a candidate for Congress as you could ever expect to find. Level-headed, willing to listen, having the public interest at heart, personable, a successful lawyer, the works. Will Sali win again? Hey, this is North Idaho. Anything can happen. There are people here who (gasp) still think Bush is doing a good job.
LKBIQ:
"The Republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it."
Elmer Davis
Here at home in Idaho I find myself facing a true dilemna (for me, anyway). Larry LaRocco is running for Craig's Senate seat (whether Craig decides to run again or not). I view Craig as utterly useless as a Senator (probably for anything else as well). He always votes with Bush/Cheney, or at least 99.9% of the time. He is an anti-environmentalist who believes it is more important to ship a few more potatoes than to save the salmon, thinks ranchers should be able to graze their stock any damn place they choose, regardless of the consequences, would never even consider breeching the dams no matter what, and so on. So I should be enthusiastic about LaRocco, but I'm not. I seldom worry about single issues but in LaRocco's case it has to do with something of absolutely fundamental importance - nuclear energy. He's for it. I'm positively opposed to it. I believe that anyone who promotes nuclear energy has nothing but contempt for life on our planet. Sure, the planet itself will survive, but what of all forms of life, human and otherwise? Nuclear waste has a shelf life of thousands upon thousands of years. We don't know what to do with it and so far it doesn't look like there are any viable options. Sending it to Russia, as the French are doing, is not a solution. Burying it in Nevada is not a solution. So, until someone comes up with a solution I am adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. I do not see how, in good conscience, I could vote for Larry LaRocco. But of course I could never vote for Craig. It looks like I just may not vote for either of them.
Larry Grant, on the other hand, is a fine candidate with his head screwed on properly. He's opposed to nuclear energy. Running against Bill Sali, who has proven himself even more useless than Craig (if that's possible) apparently just votes against most everything, usually along with a very small minority of cranks and nuts. He has to do the bidding of the Club for Growth which gave him most all of the money he used to get elected. The Club for Growth doesn't want any government. I guess their motto is, fix your own bridge, educate your own child (we need more cannonball makers and farriers and brain tanners), and so on. There was a letter supporting Sali in our local paper last week. The writer claimed he was an "Oklahoma." In all fairness to the writer that mistake was probably our local paper's. Their editing standards are somewhat below those of Junior High. In any case, why is someone from Oklahoma writing on behalf of Bill Sali? I haven't seen any local letters of support. Sali received very little money or support from people in Idaho. How did he get elected? Because he's a Republican, or at least pretends to be. Here in North Idaho if you're a Republican you can be otherwise completely brain dead and still get elected. Sali is a perfect case in point. Craig is not far behind. Larry Grant is as fine a candidate for Congress as you could ever expect to find. Level-headed, willing to listen, having the public interest at heart, personable, a successful lawyer, the works. Will Sali win again? Hey, this is North Idaho. Anything can happen. There are people here who (gasp) still think Bush is doing a good job.
LKBIQ:
"The Republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it."
Elmer Davis
Friday, August 03, 2007
Hello? Where's everyone been?
In the local thing that tries to pass itself off as a newspaper it was reported that in the states of Washington and Idaho there are 2,700 bridges that are below standard or obsolete. If that is true, image how many more substandard bridges there must be in the U.S. Why is this so? Because, among other things, that Republican idol, Ronald (know-nothing) Reagan convinced them that government was "the problem." So fewer taxes, and with fewer taxes, less maintenance of our superstructure. That's pretty simple, no? Now we are beginning to pay the price for the Republican mantra of constantly reducing taxes or, conversely, using our tax money to rebuild bridges they unnecessarily bombed in other countries, most notably Iraq. Of course the bridges they are rebuilding there are almost certainly being built to substandards so as to maximize corporate profits.
There was also, in our pretend newspaper, an article about the deleterious effects of plastics. It seems that an estrogen-like chemical in plastics has been causing a number of reproductive disorders in our citizens for years. Surprise! A problem with plastics. Actually, this has been known to many people for about 30 years. My wife has studiously avoided using most plastic objects for years as she knew about this problem. So why didn't we all know about it sooner? Guess. I bet it has something to do with the interests and profits of big business and the failure of our government to act in the best interests of our citizens rather than in the interests of corporate profits.
Whatever happened to the concept of the public good? Our democracy (such as it was) did not come about as a scheme to maximize corporate profit and minimize the public good. The idea that everything should be privatized and the government should not be involved is fundamentally ridiculous if government is supposed to provide for the public well-being. But in recent years, particularly under Reagan and now the Bushes, virtually everything is being privatized. It remains true, however, that some things are far too important to be privatized. Health care is certainly one of them. So you have morons like Guiliani immediately crying socialism at the mere mention of universal health care. Water, too, is too important to be privatized, as is the air we breath and the foods we eat. There simply has to be some control over these things. Goering said once that "when I hear culture I reach for my revolver." That is precisely the way we should react when we hear privatization. Look what privatization did for energy in California. Capitalism cannot be allowed to run rampant, it has to be subject to at least some basic controls. If you want to privatize the cosmetic or fashion industry what difference does it make. But, please, not health care, energy or water and the basics of human existence.
Democratic whining continues. Yesterday I heard something to the effect that, "they won't even come and talk to us and we don't know what to do about it." They should stop the whining and actually do something about it. They could, for example, have Meirs and Bolton arrested and brought to Congress in handcuffs. They could certainly begin impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney. They could get rid of Gonzales. They could do any number of positive things but they apparently just prefer to stand around and whine. They, too, are not interested in the public good, just the good of their party. They are every bit as bad as Republicans - and that is REALLY BAD! And while both parties play their political games our youngest and finest die daily where they shouldn't even be, immersed in a civil war that is none of our business (except, of course, for having caused it). The deaths, destruction, misery, and horror brought about by the Bush/Cheney administration is incalculable. Are they just going to be allowed to walk away with no accountability? How is it none of the candidates ever mentions this?
Can there be anything more absurd than Bush's so-called plan to convene a meeting to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem? He has completely neglected this problem for the past six and a half years, blatantly supported Israel at every turn, and now that he has no credibility whatsoever he thinks he can actually do something about it? And he is going to ignore Hamas and leave out the countries that do not want to recognize Israel no matter what. Bush apparently doesn't understand that he is no more than a laughingstock at this point and this feeble attempt to do something will be lucky if it even results in a meeting. Condi Rice has become a pathetic figure, something like the mouse that tries to roar but only squeaks. This administration thinks that diplomacy means do as we insist or else.
Matching the above in absurdity is Bush's request that Congress strengthen his illegal surveillance program so that the only oversight comes 120 days after they do it and Alberto Gonzales will be in charge of reviewing it. This is a request that indicates to me that Bush has long since lost whatever marbles he might have had. But don't bet the Democrats won't give in to this.
LKBIQ:
"It would have made a cat laugh."
James R. Planche
There was also, in our pretend newspaper, an article about the deleterious effects of plastics. It seems that an estrogen-like chemical in plastics has been causing a number of reproductive disorders in our citizens for years. Surprise! A problem with plastics. Actually, this has been known to many people for about 30 years. My wife has studiously avoided using most plastic objects for years as she knew about this problem. So why didn't we all know about it sooner? Guess. I bet it has something to do with the interests and profits of big business and the failure of our government to act in the best interests of our citizens rather than in the interests of corporate profits.
Whatever happened to the concept of the public good? Our democracy (such as it was) did not come about as a scheme to maximize corporate profit and minimize the public good. The idea that everything should be privatized and the government should not be involved is fundamentally ridiculous if government is supposed to provide for the public well-being. But in recent years, particularly under Reagan and now the Bushes, virtually everything is being privatized. It remains true, however, that some things are far too important to be privatized. Health care is certainly one of them. So you have morons like Guiliani immediately crying socialism at the mere mention of universal health care. Water, too, is too important to be privatized, as is the air we breath and the foods we eat. There simply has to be some control over these things. Goering said once that "when I hear culture I reach for my revolver." That is precisely the way we should react when we hear privatization. Look what privatization did for energy in California. Capitalism cannot be allowed to run rampant, it has to be subject to at least some basic controls. If you want to privatize the cosmetic or fashion industry what difference does it make. But, please, not health care, energy or water and the basics of human existence.
Democratic whining continues. Yesterday I heard something to the effect that, "they won't even come and talk to us and we don't know what to do about it." They should stop the whining and actually do something about it. They could, for example, have Meirs and Bolton arrested and brought to Congress in handcuffs. They could certainly begin impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney. They could get rid of Gonzales. They could do any number of positive things but they apparently just prefer to stand around and whine. They, too, are not interested in the public good, just the good of their party. They are every bit as bad as Republicans - and that is REALLY BAD! And while both parties play their political games our youngest and finest die daily where they shouldn't even be, immersed in a civil war that is none of our business (except, of course, for having caused it). The deaths, destruction, misery, and horror brought about by the Bush/Cheney administration is incalculable. Are they just going to be allowed to walk away with no accountability? How is it none of the candidates ever mentions this?
Can there be anything more absurd than Bush's so-called plan to convene a meeting to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem? He has completely neglected this problem for the past six and a half years, blatantly supported Israel at every turn, and now that he has no credibility whatsoever he thinks he can actually do something about it? And he is going to ignore Hamas and leave out the countries that do not want to recognize Israel no matter what. Bush apparently doesn't understand that he is no more than a laughingstock at this point and this feeble attempt to do something will be lucky if it even results in a meeting. Condi Rice has become a pathetic figure, something like the mouse that tries to roar but only squeaks. This administration thinks that diplomacy means do as we insist or else.
Matching the above in absurdity is Bush's request that Congress strengthen his illegal surveillance program so that the only oversight comes 120 days after they do it and Alberto Gonzales will be in charge of reviewing it. This is a request that indicates to me that Bush has long since lost whatever marbles he might have had. But don't bet the Democrats won't give in to this.
LKBIQ:
"It would have made a cat laugh."
James R. Planche
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
More of the same
Surely no one can be surprised that Bush is claiming Executive Priviledge for Turd Blossom. There is no way Bush could let Rove testify under oath, Rove, of all people, who knows where all the bodies are buried, all the skeletons are hidden, all the secrets they can't allow anyone to learn about. I am constantly surprised that Congress persists in trying to pry information out of the White House. Just IMPEACH the crooks and have done with it! There isn't even any doubt that Bush/Cheney are eminently impeachable. More importantly, there isn't any doubt they are guilty of terrible war crimes. No one seems to want to even mention this. Somehow it is unmentionable, along with any criticism of Israel, both facts leading us inevitably to more and more disaster. At the moment it looks like they won't even be successful at impeaching Gonzales the Incompetent.
Today I received in the mail my third wall calendar for 2008. I will no doubt receive two or three more before the end of the year. I also now have somewhere in the vicinity of twenty thousand or so return address labels, enough to last me for several lifetimes were I to actually use them. I don't want these things. I didn't ask for them. My mistake, apparently, was donating money to various causes in the first place. What is really irritating about this is that these things are not really gifts. You are expected to make a donation. Sure, you don't have to make a donation but if you don't you of course look like an ungrateful lout. What is even more galling is when they enclose a questionnaire for you to fill out. This is to make you feel important, as if your opinion somehow really matters. The questionnaire consists of five or six questions, your answer to which are already known to them or you wouldn't be on their mailing list. I regard this as pretty sneaky. Then there is the ploy of sending you a stamped return envelope so if you don't return it (preferably with your donation) you feel guilty about wasting a stamp. They try everything. I guess you're really better off not donating money to anyone in the first place. But then you have to live with the reality of being a truly cheap shmuck. I'd like to donate money to most of these causes but as there are by now so many of them it is totally out of the question. And how do you choose? Are the whales more important than the Polar Bears? Are the salmon more important than shipping more potatoes? Are Indian schools more important than Black colleges? Are Firemen more important than Police? I could go on but you get the picture. I don't like to have to worry or feel guilty about this stuff, but I do. I wish they would stop sending me things. I'm thinking of trying to make a deal with some of them; if they promise not to send me things or put on fundraisers I'll donate money. How's that for fair?
Another thing I sometimes worry about is tipping. I suspect that most waiters and waitresses don't report all their tips on their income tax. So if I tip them am I not part of a criminal conspiracy of some kind (not to worry, I do tip, I just wonder about it).
LKBIQ:
"I believe the Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey."
Mark Twain
Today I received in the mail my third wall calendar for 2008. I will no doubt receive two or three more before the end of the year. I also now have somewhere in the vicinity of twenty thousand or so return address labels, enough to last me for several lifetimes were I to actually use them. I don't want these things. I didn't ask for them. My mistake, apparently, was donating money to various causes in the first place. What is really irritating about this is that these things are not really gifts. You are expected to make a donation. Sure, you don't have to make a donation but if you don't you of course look like an ungrateful lout. What is even more galling is when they enclose a questionnaire for you to fill out. This is to make you feel important, as if your opinion somehow really matters. The questionnaire consists of five or six questions, your answer to which are already known to them or you wouldn't be on their mailing list. I regard this as pretty sneaky. Then there is the ploy of sending you a stamped return envelope so if you don't return it (preferably with your donation) you feel guilty about wasting a stamp. They try everything. I guess you're really better off not donating money to anyone in the first place. But then you have to live with the reality of being a truly cheap shmuck. I'd like to donate money to most of these causes but as there are by now so many of them it is totally out of the question. And how do you choose? Are the whales more important than the Polar Bears? Are the salmon more important than shipping more potatoes? Are Indian schools more important than Black colleges? Are Firemen more important than Police? I could go on but you get the picture. I don't like to have to worry or feel guilty about this stuff, but I do. I wish they would stop sending me things. I'm thinking of trying to make a deal with some of them; if they promise not to send me things or put on fundraisers I'll donate money. How's that for fair?
Another thing I sometimes worry about is tipping. I suspect that most waiters and waitresses don't report all their tips on their income tax. So if I tip them am I not part of a criminal conspiracy of some kind (not to worry, I do tip, I just wonder about it).
LKBIQ:
"I believe the Heavenly Father invented man because he was disappointed in the monkey."
Mark Twain
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Innocent until proven guilty?
I don't know about the Michael Vick case but he is pretty clearly regarded as guilty before there is any proof or trial. They may have enough already to prove that he is guilty but we do not know that. Trying to be faithful to the rule, "innocent until proven guilty," is not always easy. Consider the following case which is a true account of the trial of a burglar:
The defendant was a tall, slim, nice-looking black man of about thirty years of age. He was accused of multiple burglaries in a couple of very up-scale neighborhoods. He was facing 29 separate counts. His modus operandi was to break into the houses of wealthy old people, rough them up, take their money and jewelry. He went so far in some cases as to drag them around by the hair. He did not use a gun unless he found one in the home he was robbing. Refusing to confess, he had demanded a trial by jury.
The Prosecutor, a fairly young white lawyer, began the trial by enumerating the evidence he was prepared to demonstrate. As the burglar hadn't killed anyone there were many eyewitnesses to his crimes. In virtually all homes his fingerprints were found. He had no recollection of where he was on nights of the crimes and therefore no alibis. Two pairs of shoes were found in his apartment. The tread on both pairs matched perfectly with tracks found outside some of the homes. His girlfriend was caught leaving his apartment with a pillowcase from one of the houses filled with jewelry identified as that of the various victims. Now I submit that in order to believe this defendant was innocent you had to believe that the prosecutor was a pathological liar and would not be able to present the evidence he claimed. I do not believe any one of the twelve jurors, whether white or not, believed he was innocent. I certainly did not believe it. I am almost positive the judge did not believe it and was pretty obviously miffed that he had to preside over such a useless trial. Even so, I believe he did try to be fair and impartial, although I am sure it was difficult for him.
Our jury found him guilty on 28 of the 29 charges. The one charge on which there was one holdout was because one of the black jurors was talked down to by the white jury foreman and just stubbornly refused to give up. When this count was read out by the foreman I thought the judge might have a heart attack as there was no doubt whatsoever that the defendant was guilty.
Do I think we should do away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I don't think so. The worst thing one might say about a case like this is that it was a waste of time. The guy was so overwhelmingly guilty there really should not have been a trial - but as he refused to confess there was no other choice. However, on the basis of this experience and a few others, I long ago came to the conclusion that if I ever stand accused of a crime I did not commit, I would rather be tried by a competent judge than a jury (juries can be extremely irrational).
If they were ever to go to trial does anyone believe Bush and Cheney are innocent?
Why is it that everytime the MSM mentions the benchmarks they always mention the sharing of oil but they never mention with whom it is supposed to be shared. They obviously want us to believe it's all about sharing between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, when in fact by far the greatest share is to go to the huge Oil companies. I don't believe the Iraqis are going to fall for this attempted robbery no matter how long they remain under siege.
LKBIQ:
"The intellectual desolation, artificially produced by converting immature human beings into mere machines."
Karl Marx
The defendant was a tall, slim, nice-looking black man of about thirty years of age. He was accused of multiple burglaries in a couple of very up-scale neighborhoods. He was facing 29 separate counts. His modus operandi was to break into the houses of wealthy old people, rough them up, take their money and jewelry. He went so far in some cases as to drag them around by the hair. He did not use a gun unless he found one in the home he was robbing. Refusing to confess, he had demanded a trial by jury.
The Prosecutor, a fairly young white lawyer, began the trial by enumerating the evidence he was prepared to demonstrate. As the burglar hadn't killed anyone there were many eyewitnesses to his crimes. In virtually all homes his fingerprints were found. He had no recollection of where he was on nights of the crimes and therefore no alibis. Two pairs of shoes were found in his apartment. The tread on both pairs matched perfectly with tracks found outside some of the homes. His girlfriend was caught leaving his apartment with a pillowcase from one of the houses filled with jewelry identified as that of the various victims. Now I submit that in order to believe this defendant was innocent you had to believe that the prosecutor was a pathological liar and would not be able to present the evidence he claimed. I do not believe any one of the twelve jurors, whether white or not, believed he was innocent. I certainly did not believe it. I am almost positive the judge did not believe it and was pretty obviously miffed that he had to preside over such a useless trial. Even so, I believe he did try to be fair and impartial, although I am sure it was difficult for him.
Our jury found him guilty on 28 of the 29 charges. The one charge on which there was one holdout was because one of the black jurors was talked down to by the white jury foreman and just stubbornly refused to give up. When this count was read out by the foreman I thought the judge might have a heart attack as there was no doubt whatsoever that the defendant was guilty.
Do I think we should do away with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I don't think so. The worst thing one might say about a case like this is that it was a waste of time. The guy was so overwhelmingly guilty there really should not have been a trial - but as he refused to confess there was no other choice. However, on the basis of this experience and a few others, I long ago came to the conclusion that if I ever stand accused of a crime I did not commit, I would rather be tried by a competent judge than a jury (juries can be extremely irrational).
If they were ever to go to trial does anyone believe Bush and Cheney are innocent?
Why is it that everytime the MSM mentions the benchmarks they always mention the sharing of oil but they never mention with whom it is supposed to be shared. They obviously want us to believe it's all about sharing between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, when in fact by far the greatest share is to go to the huge Oil companies. I don't believe the Iraqis are going to fall for this attempted robbery no matter how long they remain under siege.
LKBIQ:
"The intellectual desolation, artificially produced by converting immature human beings into mere machines."
Karl Marx
Monday, July 30, 2007
Is Gonzo finished?
Apparently Fox "News" tried to get someone to appear and defend Gonzales and could find no one willing to do so. Tomorrow a move to impeach Gonzales is to be introduced. It is not clear this will succeed. But if no one is willing to come forward and defend the embattled A.G. how would anyone (read Republicans) dare to block the impeachment? I should think this will put Republicans in a truly awkward position and as only Bush and Cheney support him it looks like he will have to finally go. You can rise very high on incompetence in the Bush/Cheney administration but I guess there is a limit even there. Bush/Cheney could declare martial law and have us all arrested, cancel the 2008 election, and order some ermine robes and gold and jewel encrusted staffs. Don't laugh.
Another comment on the great cleavage scandal. Some Republican (I can't remember which one - they all look alike to me) said that as Hillary's campaign is so carefully scripted she never does anything without meaning to do it, implying, of course, that she revealed her cleavage deliberately. I wish I could remember his name as I would like to ask him just what it is he believes she is doing by this daring act. I don't think she can be trying to prove she's a woman, she's been around far too long for any mistakes to be made there. Perhaps he thinks she's trying to attract the lesbian vote (Republicans have tried for years to suggest she might be a lesbian). Maybe she's just trying to call attention to her pulchritude? Perhaps she's trying to divert attention from her petty squabble with Obama. I think the best guess is she's trying to appeal to the obvious and widespread prurient interests of Republicans and thereby attract some votes. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a blouse is just a blouse. I don't think we should take our attention away from this monumental problem even for a minute, we might have to consider the disaster that is Iraq and the Bush/Cheney Presidency.
I see the great hypocritical loudmouth, windbag Newt Gingrich, is at it again, telling us all his views on what is what. Does he have any credibility? And if so, why? He has been exposed more than once as dishonest as well as super hypocritical, so why would anyone listen to him? He doesn't even stack up well against the multiple Republican candidates already announced, who have all lost out to "None of the above." If Newt the Pontificator does throw his hat in the ring they'll have to change that last category to "No, no, a thousand time no, I'd rather die than say yes."
Michael Vick is guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunate but apparently true, at least for many. I think the moral is, don't abuse dogs (stick to abusing children you'll get a better deal). While I certainly condemn cruelty to any animals, the killing of masses of innocent human beings is at least as bad if not worse, yet many people don't seem to mind the latter as much as the former. Strange, that.
LKBIQ:
"The priviledge of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only"
Thomas Hobbes
Another comment on the great cleavage scandal. Some Republican (I can't remember which one - they all look alike to me) said that as Hillary's campaign is so carefully scripted she never does anything without meaning to do it, implying, of course, that she revealed her cleavage deliberately. I wish I could remember his name as I would like to ask him just what it is he believes she is doing by this daring act. I don't think she can be trying to prove she's a woman, she's been around far too long for any mistakes to be made there. Perhaps he thinks she's trying to attract the lesbian vote (Republicans have tried for years to suggest she might be a lesbian). Maybe she's just trying to call attention to her pulchritude? Perhaps she's trying to divert attention from her petty squabble with Obama. I think the best guess is she's trying to appeal to the obvious and widespread prurient interests of Republicans and thereby attract some votes. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a blouse is just a blouse. I don't think we should take our attention away from this monumental problem even for a minute, we might have to consider the disaster that is Iraq and the Bush/Cheney Presidency.
I see the great hypocritical loudmouth, windbag Newt Gingrich, is at it again, telling us all his views on what is what. Does he have any credibility? And if so, why? He has been exposed more than once as dishonest as well as super hypocritical, so why would anyone listen to him? He doesn't even stack up well against the multiple Republican candidates already announced, who have all lost out to "None of the above." If Newt the Pontificator does throw his hat in the ring they'll have to change that last category to "No, no, a thousand time no, I'd rather die than say yes."
Michael Vick is guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunate but apparently true, at least for many. I think the moral is, don't abuse dogs (stick to abusing children you'll get a better deal). While I certainly condemn cruelty to any animals, the killing of masses of innocent human beings is at least as bad if not worse, yet many people don't seem to mind the latter as much as the former. Strange, that.
LKBIQ:
"The priviledge of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only"
Thomas Hobbes
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Hillary has breasts!
Holy moly! Heavens to Betsy! Zounds! You must have all heard by now that Hillary Clinton has breasts! Two of them! Imagine that! I guess she has now progressed from candidate for President to femme fatale. What a controversy! Now Robin Givhans, who wrote the somewhat offensive piece in the first place, claims it wasn't about her newly revealed cleavage but, rather, about fashion. Hillary is a serious woman and a serious and leading candidate for President of the U.S. Why is concentrating on her wardrobe any the less absurd that her cleavage? I don't see anyone concerned about Bush's suits or neckties. Is anyone even aware if Cheney wears clothes? Gonzales I guess might be pretty nappy, I don't know. I don't care either. Are clothes going to be the standard for electing a President? I always thought the criterion was whether or not you might like to drink a beer with the President. I'd love to drink a beer with Hillary.
We certainly heard plenty about John Edwards haircuts (and Kerry's even before). Wow! Edwards has hair, and gets it cut. It's expensive. I guess he's too much of a spender to be President (he has a fine video out about what is actually important - I hope some of the MSM will look at it). How come we never hear about the grooming habits of Republicans? How about that guy caught on camera (I can't think of his name right now) licking his comb and then running it through his hair? Urk! I certainly wouldn't want him for President.
If it hasn't become obvious by now you must have been asleep for a long time. If you want any real news don't bother to watch the MSM. Indeed, they will resort to anything to avoid telling the truth about the Bush/Cheney administration, the situation in Iraq, the influence of the Israeli lobby, Iran, Syria, and so on. If you watch only the MSM you are probably wondering what all the fuss is about. Why should Bush/Cheney be impeached? Alberto hasn't done anything wrong. Neither has Libby. The "war" is going well, we just need more time. Petraeus will save us all. Just total crap piled on the biggest accumulation of crap ever produced before by an American administration.
LKBIQ:
"In harsh and melancholy epochs free men may always take comfort from the ground lesson of history that tyrannies cannot last except among servile races."
Sir Winston Churchill
We certainly heard plenty about John Edwards haircuts (and Kerry's even before). Wow! Edwards has hair, and gets it cut. It's expensive. I guess he's too much of a spender to be President (he has a fine video out about what is actually important - I hope some of the MSM will look at it). How come we never hear about the grooming habits of Republicans? How about that guy caught on camera (I can't think of his name right now) licking his comb and then running it through his hair? Urk! I certainly wouldn't want him for President.
If it hasn't become obvious by now you must have been asleep for a long time. If you want any real news don't bother to watch the MSM. Indeed, they will resort to anything to avoid telling the truth about the Bush/Cheney administration, the situation in Iraq, the influence of the Israeli lobby, Iran, Syria, and so on. If you watch only the MSM you are probably wondering what all the fuss is about. Why should Bush/Cheney be impeached? Alberto hasn't done anything wrong. Neither has Libby. The "war" is going well, we just need more time. Petraeus will save us all. Just total crap piled on the biggest accumulation of crap ever produced before by an American administration.
LKBIQ:
"In harsh and melancholy epochs free men may always take comfort from the ground lesson of history that tyrannies cannot last except among servile races."
Sir Winston Churchill
Saturday, July 28, 2007
"Benevolent Assimilation...."
Forget the comparison with Vietnam. Consider the American-Philippine War of 1899-1903. I am just finishing "Benevolent Assimilation" The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, by Stuart Creighton Miller, Yale U. Press, 1982. The comparison with what is now happening in Iraq is absolutely uncanny. First, an unpopular repressive administration (Spain) that needs to be overthrown. America steps in to help rid the Philippines of Spanish rule. The Philippinos want independence but America won't leave. There are insurgents determined to save their country. There is an undeclared "war." America doesn't send enough troops to do the job. There is an extended guerilla-type "war," although the U.S. is far superior in military firepower, etc. There are atrocities on both sides, terrible atrocities by U.S. troops compared with what were regarded as U.S. standards of warfare, the unwarranted killing of innocent civilians, including women and children, rape, the burning and destruction of entire villages. There is torture, including water torture. There is looting and profiteering. There is American arrogance and racism. There are continuing claims that all is going well and the "war" is over, when it is far from being over. There are the anti-imperialists and the imperialists. If you read this book you will certainly think of contemporary Iraq. The Philippine "war," like the present Iraq "war," are doubtless the most despicable of all U.S. endeavors along these lines, black marks against our country that will never be erased. The only difference I can see is that in 1900 we were not so coy about our arrogance and racism:
"Our 'little brown brother,' the Filipino pure and simple, whom we are so anxious to uplift to his proper plane on earth and relieve from the burden cast upon him by heredity and a few hundred years of Spanish dominion, is without doubt unreliable, untrustworthy, ignorant, vicious, immoral, and lazy...tricky, and as a race more dishonest than any known race on the face of the earth."
"Soon we had orders to advance, and we...started across the creek in mud and water up to our waists. However, we did not mind it a bit, our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' This shooting human beings is a 'hot game,' and beats rabbit hunting all to pieces. We charged them and such a slaughter you never saw. We killed them like rabbits, hundreds, yes thousands of them. Everyone was crazy."
"The town of Titatia {sic} was surrendered to us a few days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women, and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger."
This kind of behavior on the part of American troops was partly due to the fact that many of the officers and enlisted men were veterans of the Indian wars in the U.S. and were proud of having participated in the genocide of American Indians. They merely took the same tactics they were familiar with to the Philippines. Will the outcome of the American-Iraq "war" be similar to the outcome of the American-Philippine "war?" I don't think so.
LKBIQ:
"Sundays are gloomy. My hours are slumberless. Dearest, the shadows I live with are numberless. Little white flowers will never awaken you, not where the black coach of sorrow has taken you. Gloomy sunday."
Billie Holiday
"Our 'little brown brother,' the Filipino pure and simple, whom we are so anxious to uplift to his proper plane on earth and relieve from the burden cast upon him by heredity and a few hundred years of Spanish dominion, is without doubt unreliable, untrustworthy, ignorant, vicious, immoral, and lazy...tricky, and as a race more dishonest than any known race on the face of the earth."
"Soon we had orders to advance, and we...started across the creek in mud and water up to our waists. However, we did not mind it a bit, our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' This shooting human beings is a 'hot game,' and beats rabbit hunting all to pieces. We charged them and such a slaughter you never saw. We killed them like rabbits, hundreds, yes thousands of them. Everyone was crazy."
"The town of Titatia {sic} was surrendered to us a few days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women, and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger."
This kind of behavior on the part of American troops was partly due to the fact that many of the officers and enlisted men were veterans of the Indian wars in the U.S. and were proud of having participated in the genocide of American Indians. They merely took the same tactics they were familiar with to the Philippines. Will the outcome of the American-Iraq "war" be similar to the outcome of the American-Philippine "war?" I don't think so.
LKBIQ:
"Sundays are gloomy. My hours are slumberless. Dearest, the shadows I live with are numberless. Little white flowers will never awaken you, not where the black coach of sorrow has taken you. Gloomy sunday."
Billie Holiday
Friday, July 27, 2007
Shilly-shallying
There was no Morialekafa last night because of relatives visiting from Norway. I have many relatives in Norway, including one who still lives on and farms the original Langness farm (from which we received our name when arriving in the U.S.). They are all third, fourth, fifth cousins and such. Far to complicated for me to figure out or keep track of. What is the actual relationship between the daughter of my third cousin and me? Anyone? Marwell and Bjorn. Wonderful people. We had a great time.
Back to business. What can you call what is now going on between Congress and the White House other than simply shilly-shallying? So they are issuing contempt citations and more and more subpoenas. Even Rove has now received one. Does anyone actually believe that Bush/Cheney are going to allow Rove to testify? Of course not. Just as in the case of Meirs and Bolton, the White House will claim executive priviledge. Whether this is legitimate or not isn't really the point as it will surely drag on and on until the end of the Bush administration. Congress has to be aware of this. The only realistic way to get at Bush/Cheney is through impeachment. This is obvious even to dolts like me. So why continue to shilly-shally around? The latest excuse from Conyers and others seem to be they don't have the votes to convict. That might be doubtful. In any case, it won't matter a bit if they don't actually get convicted, the process itself will reveal so much wrongdoing the Republicans will become totally impotent for years. And, if the Democrats don't try to impeach them, they will likely become impotent themselves (I should say more impotent).
It remains hot, hot, hot here at Sandhill. We have never had weather like this before. We always had a few days of hot weather in August but never anything like this continuing heat. The garden is truly suffering even though being watered frequently. The corn and beans seem to be doing okay but most everything else is in trouble. I picked the first of the beans yesterday. If all goes well we should have a bumper crop of beans this year. I think we're going to need them now that the market is crashing once again. Way to go Bush!
I see the Republicans have started in already on their standard tax and spend accusations against the Democrats. You would think that any party that has run up the largest national debt in history might be more humble about this. Personally, I'd much rather have tax and spend than borrow and spend. But oh, I forgot, Cheney assured us that deficits don't matter (he learned this from Ronald Reagan who of course balanced the budget during his Presidency - ha, ha, that's a joke). There are those who believe Reagan's face should be added to the ones already on Mt. Rushmore. There are lots of really stupid people in the U.S. Almost all of them are Republicans. Personally, I believe Bush and Cheney's faces should be etched on the walls of all the public urinals in the country as a constant reminder of their evil crimes and wrongdoings. Just a suggestion.
LKBIQ:
"We talked of things one wants to know to take the measure of a man and discover if the cloth of friendship fits, where the pockets of admiration and respect are sewn, and where the seams."
Cornelius Osgood
Back to business. What can you call what is now going on between Congress and the White House other than simply shilly-shallying? So they are issuing contempt citations and more and more subpoenas. Even Rove has now received one. Does anyone actually believe that Bush/Cheney are going to allow Rove to testify? Of course not. Just as in the case of Meirs and Bolton, the White House will claim executive priviledge. Whether this is legitimate or not isn't really the point as it will surely drag on and on until the end of the Bush administration. Congress has to be aware of this. The only realistic way to get at Bush/Cheney is through impeachment. This is obvious even to dolts like me. So why continue to shilly-shally around? The latest excuse from Conyers and others seem to be they don't have the votes to convict. That might be doubtful. In any case, it won't matter a bit if they don't actually get convicted, the process itself will reveal so much wrongdoing the Republicans will become totally impotent for years. And, if the Democrats don't try to impeach them, they will likely become impotent themselves (I should say more impotent).
It remains hot, hot, hot here at Sandhill. We have never had weather like this before. We always had a few days of hot weather in August but never anything like this continuing heat. The garden is truly suffering even though being watered frequently. The corn and beans seem to be doing okay but most everything else is in trouble. I picked the first of the beans yesterday. If all goes well we should have a bumper crop of beans this year. I think we're going to need them now that the market is crashing once again. Way to go Bush!
I see the Republicans have started in already on their standard tax and spend accusations against the Democrats. You would think that any party that has run up the largest national debt in history might be more humble about this. Personally, I'd much rather have tax and spend than borrow and spend. But oh, I forgot, Cheney assured us that deficits don't matter (he learned this from Ronald Reagan who of course balanced the budget during his Presidency - ha, ha, that's a joke). There are those who believe Reagan's face should be added to the ones already on Mt. Rushmore. There are lots of really stupid people in the U.S. Almost all of them are Republicans. Personally, I believe Bush and Cheney's faces should be etched on the walls of all the public urinals in the country as a constant reminder of their evil crimes and wrongdoings. Just a suggestion.
LKBIQ:
"We talked of things one wants to know to take the measure of a man and discover if the cloth of friendship fits, where the pockets of admiration and respect are sewn, and where the seams."
Cornelius Osgood
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Anniversary
Tonight is the 3rd anniversary of Morialekafa. My first blog on this date three years ago had to do with "Bush aides are serial hypocrites." This had to do with their criticisms of John Kerry for getting $75 haircuts and wearing $250 shirts. I said they were carrying hypocrisy to entirely new levels (what with Bush wearing $2000 and $3000 suits, etc.). Little did I know that three years later we would still be putting up with this hypocritical bullshit and worse, much worse.
One would think that with contempt charges being brought against Bolton and Meir, the disgraceful performance of our Attorney General that might result in charges against him, the fact that the entire world knows now that Bush/Cheney and the neocons are blatant liars, the "war" in Iraq is a total disaster, and the continuation of it is simply a ploy to make further profits out of war profiteering, the White House would be in big trouble. That is, indeed, what many are saying, but the question is, what is anyone doing? So far they can't even get enough Congresspersons to sign on to the impeachment charges against Dick the Slimy, clearly the most impeachable person in the history of our country. There is talk of impeachment, to be sure, but nobody "walks the walk." Even John Conyers, who was all for impeachment a while back, seems to be opposed at the moment. What do you suppose Bush/Cheney might have to use against him? Gonzales is so obviously either completely incompetent or a terrible liar he should have to go. No President in history would have kept such a disgraceful person as Attorney General, but Bush refuses to let him go. This speaks loudly to Bush's contempt for not only Congress and the people, but also to his contempt for reality.
Gonzales's performance before the Senate was so outrageously ludicrous as to rival the best of the Keystone Cops. It was surreal in the extreme. It was (is) the perfect example of the situation we now find ourselves mired in. It is no longer a question of whether Bush/Cheney/Gonzales et al, committed all the vile, despicable, illegal, immoral, criminal, unconstitutional and unconscionable acts we know about, but, rather, will they get away with it? At this moment I have to say Bush/Cheney 1, Congress and the rest of us, 0. So far the opposition to Bush/Cheney is all talk and little action. Yes, they brought contempt charges against Bolton/Meirs, but they have to go before the entire Congress and, knowing them, they may not agree. Even if they do agree the whole thing will drag on and on until this administration is gone. This seems to be the strategy now - don't worry about admitting guilt, just keep on obfuscating until doomsday. And what will happen after doomsday? Will Bush/Cheney and their ilk live happily ever after on their obscene war profiteering? Will they be held responsible for their crimes? I hope I can live long enough to see them punished for what they have done. If not, it will be the greatest disappointment of my life.
LKBIQ:
"Ordinarily he is insane, but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid."
Heinrich Heine
One would think that with contempt charges being brought against Bolton and Meir, the disgraceful performance of our Attorney General that might result in charges against him, the fact that the entire world knows now that Bush/Cheney and the neocons are blatant liars, the "war" in Iraq is a total disaster, and the continuation of it is simply a ploy to make further profits out of war profiteering, the White House would be in big trouble. That is, indeed, what many are saying, but the question is, what is anyone doing? So far they can't even get enough Congresspersons to sign on to the impeachment charges against Dick the Slimy, clearly the most impeachable person in the history of our country. There is talk of impeachment, to be sure, but nobody "walks the walk." Even John Conyers, who was all for impeachment a while back, seems to be opposed at the moment. What do you suppose Bush/Cheney might have to use against him? Gonzales is so obviously either completely incompetent or a terrible liar he should have to go. No President in history would have kept such a disgraceful person as Attorney General, but Bush refuses to let him go. This speaks loudly to Bush's contempt for not only Congress and the people, but also to his contempt for reality.
Gonzales's performance before the Senate was so outrageously ludicrous as to rival the best of the Keystone Cops. It was surreal in the extreme. It was (is) the perfect example of the situation we now find ourselves mired in. It is no longer a question of whether Bush/Cheney/Gonzales et al, committed all the vile, despicable, illegal, immoral, criminal, unconstitutional and unconscionable acts we know about, but, rather, will they get away with it? At this moment I have to say Bush/Cheney 1, Congress and the rest of us, 0. So far the opposition to Bush/Cheney is all talk and little action. Yes, they brought contempt charges against Bolton/Meirs, but they have to go before the entire Congress and, knowing them, they may not agree. Even if they do agree the whole thing will drag on and on until this administration is gone. This seems to be the strategy now - don't worry about admitting guilt, just keep on obfuscating until doomsday. And what will happen after doomsday? Will Bush/Cheney and their ilk live happily ever after on their obscene war profiteering? Will they be held responsible for their crimes? I hope I can live long enough to see them punished for what they have done. If not, it will be the greatest disappointment of my life.
LKBIQ:
"Ordinarily he is insane, but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid."
Heinrich Heine
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
When you're slapped...
"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it." This line from one of Humphrey Bogart's films (I think The Maltese Falcon) perfectly describes Bush/Cheney's treatment of Congress and the American people. What else might one think when every request from Congress is simply slapped down and Alberto Gonzales thumbs his nose at them at every turn. Gonzales is lying, Congress knows he is lying, the country knows he is lying, and he does it with the same smirking grin he learned from Bush. He just goes on lying, they just go on knowing that he's lying, but they do nothing about it. They go so far as to tell him they don't trust him but he pays no attention as he knows Bush will protect him. Congress likes being slapped in the face, in public no less. I have always known that Bush/Cheney have no shame, I didn't think the same was true of Congress until just now. I would not have thought it possible to find so many completely spineless people and place them all in Congress at the same time. I have come to the conclusion that this entire exchange between the White House and Congress is nothing more than a charade. It is meant to distract and entertain and confuse the American public while our politicians (almost all of them)just keep on transferriang tax dollars from the people to their corporate masters.
I watched a reply of the "debates" last night. Pretty boring but the MSM is trying to make something of it. The much ballyhooed questions from the public were hardly spontaneous and direct. Obviously they had been selected from hundreds or thousands submitted. Some of the questions were pretty good and some were basically silly, but it didn't matter because the candidates didn't answer them without reframing them anyway. As usual it was basically a lost two hours of television time. They are trying to make a big deal about a 15 second exchange between Hillary and Obama when Hillary sort of one-upped Obama over a technicality. Like much of the MSM news it is much ado about nothing.
I watched a reply of the "debates" last night. Pretty boring but the MSM is trying to make something of it. The much ballyhooed questions from the public were hardly spontaneous and direct. Obviously they had been selected from hundreds or thousands submitted. Some of the questions were pretty good and some were basically silly, but it didn't matter because the candidates didn't answer them without reframing them anyway. As usual it was basically a lost two hours of television time. They are trying to make a big deal about a 15 second exchange between Hillary and Obama when Hillary sort of one-upped Obama over a technicality. Like much of the MSM news it is much ado about nothing.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The basic question
I was just watching the Democratic "debates." I don't know why they are called debates as nothing is really debated. After watching most of the Democratic debates so far I have come to one conclusion. Although I am not mad about Hillary I have to confess that she comes across as quite a large cut above the others. She is always prepared, knows what she is talking about, and is very well-controlled and professional. I believe this is becoming more and more apparent to more and more people. Edelman's cheap shot at trying to roviate her is obviously helping her much more than hurting her. Hillary's biggest problem, as near as I can tell, is that those who do not like her will never change their dislike no matter what she does. Will their irrational hatred keep her from the Presidency? I doubt it.
I predicted long ago that Hillary would be the Democratic candidate. At the moment it looks like she is right on track. The only thing that might stand in her way would be if Al Gore decides to run. What do you think she might offer him not to run? I have no idea what relationship exists between Gore and the Clintons but I think if Hillary is way ahead of everyone else Gore would not be likely to run. I am often wrong.
We are in Seattle. Trying to blog on this portable machine is difficult as I am not at all used to it. The Republican candidates are such a bunch of hopeless liars and hypocrites, with no one else in sight, it looks like a dead dog Democrat might win the Presidency. But don't bet the Democrats won't figure out a way to blow it. I must say I was pleased with Edward's and Hillary's positions on nuclear power.
The most important question of all, for me at least, is: If you become President what do you intend to do about the blatant war crimes of Bush/Cheney and their administration?
A couple of recently seen bumper stickers:
"I'll vote for anyone but HER"
"Please get rid of the scary Republican"
I predicted long ago that Hillary would be the Democratic candidate. At the moment it looks like she is right on track. The only thing that might stand in her way would be if Al Gore decides to run. What do you think she might offer him not to run? I have no idea what relationship exists between Gore and the Clintons but I think if Hillary is way ahead of everyone else Gore would not be likely to run. I am often wrong.
We are in Seattle. Trying to blog on this portable machine is difficult as I am not at all used to it. The Republican candidates are such a bunch of hopeless liars and hypocrites, with no one else in sight, it looks like a dead dog Democrat might win the Presidency. But don't bet the Democrats won't figure out a way to blow it. I must say I was pleased with Edward's and Hillary's positions on nuclear power.
The most important question of all, for me at least, is: If you become President what do you intend to do about the blatant war crimes of Bush/Cheney and their administration?
A couple of recently seen bumper stickers:
"I'll vote for anyone but HER"
"Please get rid of the scary Republican"
Sunday, July 22, 2007
It just gets stupider and stupider
Not content with being involved in hopeless hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threatening to get involved in further hostilities with Iran, Bush/Cheney are now going to get involved in hostilities in Pakistan. What a brilliant idea. Having completely botched the job of getting Osama bin Laden way back when, they have now waited years while he has dug himself into the Pakistan frontier where he can almost certainly not be removed. Remember, no one has ever conquered this part of the world. As they think Musharif has not done enough to capture the terrorists in Pakistan we are now going to help him. The plan, as I understand it, is not to send in any American troops but, rather, to bomb and bomb in support of Pakistani troops. Another brilliant idea. Bombing did not work in Vietnam, hasn't worked in Iraq, and most certainly won't work in Pakistan. Furthermore, there is some doubt as to how willing the Pakistani army is going to be when it comes to attacking the Pashtuns. Pakistani army brass is supposedly in favor of this plan but the troops, who come from the same backgrounds as the terrorists, may not feel highly motivated to follow them. When the bombing fails, what then? Taliban fighters who will not turn bin Laden in even for 50 million dollars are not very likely to allow Pakistani troops to come in and take him away, especially on their tribal territories that they know like the back of their hands. Like all of Bush/Cheney's ideas this is stupid. As long as the Taliban and bin Laden are holed up in a remote corner of Pakistan they can't do much damage elsewhere. The chances of success in trying to capture bin Laden at this late stage are probably zilch. Besides, if bin Laden was not important to Bush previously as he claimed, why has he suddently taken on this new importance? I guess they believe they have to shore up Musharif who is in more and more trouble. With the great satan helping him he will probably end up in a lot more trouble.
John Conyers has said if he gets three more Congresspersons to sign on to impeach Cheney he will go ahead with it, Pelosi be damned. Please, oh please, let us find three more brave souls willing to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient. No one, NO ONE, could possibly be more deserving of impeachment than Dick the Slimy. It shouldn't take long, Cheney's crimes and misdemeanors are so numerous and so blatant, with much of the evidence right there available on videotape, it should be over very quickly. If Republicans try to block or delay it, it will just be further evidence of their perfidy and apparent death wish. It might even send a message to George the Dim. What will the puppet do without his ventriloquist, move to Paraguay?
A few nights ago my son was coming in from outside. It was very dark. He thought he saw something moving suspiciously by the garbage cans. He walked over, bent down and peered into the darkness, suddently realized that his face was merely a foot from the skunk's. He didn't get sprayed. Lucky boy.
LKBIQ:
"The independence of the judiciary from the executive is the prime defense against tyranny."
Sir Winston Churchill
John Conyers has said if he gets three more Congresspersons to sign on to impeach Cheney he will go ahead with it, Pelosi be damned. Please, oh please, let us find three more brave souls willing to do what is right instead of what is merely expedient. No one, NO ONE, could possibly be more deserving of impeachment than Dick the Slimy. It shouldn't take long, Cheney's crimes and misdemeanors are so numerous and so blatant, with much of the evidence right there available on videotape, it should be over very quickly. If Republicans try to block or delay it, it will just be further evidence of their perfidy and apparent death wish. It might even send a message to George the Dim. What will the puppet do without his ventriloquist, move to Paraguay?
A few nights ago my son was coming in from outside. It was very dark. He thought he saw something moving suspiciously by the garbage cans. He walked over, bent down and peered into the darkness, suddently realized that his face was merely a foot from the skunk's. He didn't get sprayed. Lucky boy.
LKBIQ:
"The independence of the judiciary from the executive is the prime defense against tyranny."
Sir Winston Churchill
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Impeach or surrender
The time has finally come, I fear, to either impeach Bush/Cheney or just surrender to them. They have made it abundantly clear they have nothing but contempt for Congress and the American people. They are claiming executive priviledge in such a broad way that they believe they are untouchable. As Pelosi and the Democrats have basically promised not to impeach them there are no limits to the powers they claim. The latest Presidential Executive Order is basically a declaration of war on the public and the creation of an American dictatorship. They have repeatedly placed themselves above the law, thumbed their noses at us, and blissfully go ahead doing whatever they wish. No amount of negotiation over funds for Iraq or over their claim of executive priviledge is going to make any difference to them whatsoever. There is no recourse now except impeachment. To fail to do so means surrendering to their claim of absolute power. So what is it to be?
In the half-light of evening the huge ponderosa pines outside my study are silent for the first time today. They are huge to me but for their life spans I guess they are not much more than maybe second-graders. We had one nice day, yesterday, but now today it is hot once again. The garden suffers, the peas did not do well, the corn and beans and carrots are thriving, the tomatoes lag behind, we harvested our first zuchini, and the rutabegas, beets, and parsnips are kind of so-so. This has been a tough year so far and no end in sight for this unusually long hot spell. We used to have a few hot days in August but this year has been different, very different. I can only conclude that it has something to do with global warming that is giving us extremes of temperature. I cannot believe those who argue that this is just the normal cycle of the earth's climate. I refuse to believe that a billion or more internal combustion engines plus who knows how many coal plants and other industries belching their waste into the skies have nothing to do with it. I am all for alternative energy but totally opposed to all nuclear plants. Any species that would use an energy source that produces radioactive waste they don't know what to do with, and will last more than 10,000 years, is insane and has nothing but contempt for human life on this miserably small planet. Peeing in the rivers might have been innocuous enough a couple of hundred years ago, but it isn't any longer. We have been fouling our nest long enough, now is the time to stop or it will soon be too late. It is very quiet now. The coyotes will start soon as they do most every night. The skunks visit in the night and leave their little holes everywhere. Our friends' dog got sprayed the other evening. I wonder if cats ever get it? Once we were visited by a Fisher, extremely rare, that. Two very small fawns visit most every morning. We try to keep their mothers out of the garden but do not always succeed. I love all the creatures of the earth. It would be a great pity if they, too, had to suffer from our greed and ignorance. Churchill once said, "dogs look up to us, cats look down on us. Give me a pig. Pigs just look you square in the eye and treat you as an equal." Ah, Winston, where are you when we need you so badly?
LKBIQ:
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Sir Winston Churchill
In the half-light of evening the huge ponderosa pines outside my study are silent for the first time today. They are huge to me but for their life spans I guess they are not much more than maybe second-graders. We had one nice day, yesterday, but now today it is hot once again. The garden suffers, the peas did not do well, the corn and beans and carrots are thriving, the tomatoes lag behind, we harvested our first zuchini, and the rutabegas, beets, and parsnips are kind of so-so. This has been a tough year so far and no end in sight for this unusually long hot spell. We used to have a few hot days in August but this year has been different, very different. I can only conclude that it has something to do with global warming that is giving us extremes of temperature. I cannot believe those who argue that this is just the normal cycle of the earth's climate. I refuse to believe that a billion or more internal combustion engines plus who knows how many coal plants and other industries belching their waste into the skies have nothing to do with it. I am all for alternative energy but totally opposed to all nuclear plants. Any species that would use an energy source that produces radioactive waste they don't know what to do with, and will last more than 10,000 years, is insane and has nothing but contempt for human life on this miserably small planet. Peeing in the rivers might have been innocuous enough a couple of hundred years ago, but it isn't any longer. We have been fouling our nest long enough, now is the time to stop or it will soon be too late. It is very quiet now. The coyotes will start soon as they do most every night. The skunks visit in the night and leave their little holes everywhere. Our friends' dog got sprayed the other evening. I wonder if cats ever get it? Once we were visited by a Fisher, extremely rare, that. Two very small fawns visit most every morning. We try to keep their mothers out of the garden but do not always succeed. I love all the creatures of the earth. It would be a great pity if they, too, had to suffer from our greed and ignorance. Churchill once said, "dogs look up to us, cats look down on us. Give me a pig. Pigs just look you square in the eye and treat you as an equal." Ah, Winston, where are you when we need you so badly?
LKBIQ:
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Sir Winston Churchill
Friday, July 20, 2007
Bird on a String - story
I have just seen the movie Ratatouille. I thought it was noisy and frantic. I don't have time to write a blog so here is a short story:
Bird on a String
Eopave was a fine boy, a bit taller than his peers, with an erect posture and a well-muscled body, smooth chestnut skin, and brown eyes that sparkled when he smiled his truly glorious smile. As he was the eldest boy in his age-grade, and as there were three to four years between the grades, I reckoned he was eleven or twelve. Eo frequently hung around my house and had proven himself to be bright and informative as well as useful. Sometimes, in the late afternoon, when my chief interpreter was not available, Eo and I would visit the village and catch up with the events of the day. In the four months I had lived there I had grown quite fond of him.
My little house, constructed of casuarina posts, had walls woven of flattened cane and a grass roof. There was a small kitchen/dining area, an even smaller bedroom, and a work room with windows on two sides that could be opened for a view of a generous village square. There was no village as yet, except for a couple of other houses under construction. People still lived in their old village two hundred yards to the south. They had been told to clean up the place, eliminate the ubiquitous pigs by fencing them out, and dig latrines. They interpreted this to mean they should build a new village and stop living like “kanakas.” My house was supposed to be the vanguard for changes to come, but they were coming very slowly. People in the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea, like most people everywhere, were resistant to change.
I loved the Highlands. It was a beautiful place with high mountains on both sides of the valley and shades of green that seemed infinite. The air was so pure and clear you could see for miles. Across the valley was the perpetually cloud-covered Mt. Michael where lightning storms were a nightly occurrence. Our village was built on a slight ridge- top in a sea of kunai grass, the result of centuries of burning and cultivating. In the distance to the east were two huge and solitary klinki pines, one a bit smaller than the other. The people said they were married. Our area was not as heavily populated as further to the west, but where there were villages you could see neatly patterned gardens of sweet potatoes, yams, beans, tapioca, bananas, and other staples. Near the villages were stands of bamboo and casuarina. Looking across the valley at night, villages were identified by fires and often singing. The songs were unintelligible to me but as emotional and moving and timeless as anything I had ever heard. It was a moving, even romantic experience.
Virtually every European I had encountered before I began my work had insisted the natives would steal everything I owned. Nothing of mine had been stolen. After an awkward beginning the people had proven themselves to be friendly and helpful although it was clear they had no understanding of why I was there. They provided me with food while I provided them with salt, tobacco, newspaper, matches, and an occasional shilling or two. I found them to be honest and fair with me and I tried to do right by them. Of course they had some habits and customs I found somewhat repugnant, but I strove to maintain my scientific objectivity. I recall one afternoon in particular.
It was a typical afternoon with sunshine and the usual humidity before the afternoon rain. The villages were mostly deserted as they usually were during the day. I was in my house typing field notes when I looked up and saw Eopave, alone, playing with something. At first I thought he was playing catch, throwing something in the air and catching it as he moved slowly around the bare earth of the square. Then I realized he had a small bird tied by one leg to a thin strip of bark cloth string about six feet long. He would throw the bird up in the air where it would flutter its wings hopelessly and then he would pull it roughly back. I was appalled. It was torture. I couldn’t help but feel for the poor creature. I started out of the house towards Eo to interfere but then thought better of it. He was obviously involved in his play, if one could call it that, and I had always strove not to interfere with whatever it was the natives were doing, preferring instead to simply observe and record their behavior. It sickened me to watch, but watch I did. Eo moved out of my vision for a few moments but then reappeared. The unfortunate bird was exhausted and hanging limply from the string by Eo’s side. It was obviously still alive as it still fluttered every few seconds. Eo had a few sticks and proceeded to make a small fire not far from my doorway. I watched in horror as he then plucked the little bird alive and then held it over the fire, still alive. Satisfied after a short time, he ate it. All of it. I began to feel nauseous and moved away from the window unable to watch any longer. It was the most repulsive thing I had ever seen. I could not identify with it in any way. I was both outraged and enraged. I wanted to grab him and shake him until he understood the enormity of his criminal behavior.
Criminal behavior? When I calmed down I realized, of course, that what was cruelty to animals to me meant nothing to Eopave. The people, being chronically short of meat protein, ate anything and everything: dogs, cats, rats, songbirds, grubs, whatever they could find. Knowing this however did not calm my emotions or lessen my feelings of horror and dismay. I tried to imagine what emotions, if any, Eo experienced as he completed this act. Was he proud of himself for having found a meal? Had he no empathy whatsoever for the tiny bird? Did he even think about it? I’m certain that had I interfered he would have thought there was something wrong with me. I was rather proud of myself for not having intervened. But I knew I would never look at Eo again in quite the same way.
A bit later that afternoon the people began returning to the village. Women came in from their gardens laden with heavy knit-bags of sweet potatoes hanging from their foreheads, bundles of firewood on their heads, and babies in their arms. Men returned, some from the gardens and some from hunting, carrying their ever-present bows and arrows and sometimes a bit of sugar cane, yams, or bananas that were the provenience of men. The women would build fires outside their houses and everyone would share the evening meal, including the pigs, while the children ran wild in play, a routine that had existed unchanged for centuries.
Eopave appeared at my door. “Masta, yumi go now,” he said. It was not a question, nor was it a command, simply a statement of fact, as this was what we often did. I hesitated, not certain I wanted to go, but then reached for my shoulder bag with my notebooks and flashlight, and joined him on our usual afternoon visit. It had proven to be a worthwhile endeavor and I often learned new things of interest. We walked quietly side by side down the bare path towards the old village. Here and there were traces of the palisade that had once protected them from their enemies. I could hear the murmured conversations coming from the village, occasional laughter, and sometimes an argument. The path took us within fifty yards of the men’s house. Located by itself in a dark grove of tall bamboo, it was silent, well hidden, mysterious, and foreboding, an area completely forbidden to women and children. Eo moved closer to me, then in a completely unprecedented act, timidly reached out and took my hand.
LKBIQ:
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Thomas Jefferson
Bird on a String
Eopave was a fine boy, a bit taller than his peers, with an erect posture and a well-muscled body, smooth chestnut skin, and brown eyes that sparkled when he smiled his truly glorious smile. As he was the eldest boy in his age-grade, and as there were three to four years between the grades, I reckoned he was eleven or twelve. Eo frequently hung around my house and had proven himself to be bright and informative as well as useful. Sometimes, in the late afternoon, when my chief interpreter was not available, Eo and I would visit the village and catch up with the events of the day. In the four months I had lived there I had grown quite fond of him.
My little house, constructed of casuarina posts, had walls woven of flattened cane and a grass roof. There was a small kitchen/dining area, an even smaller bedroom, and a work room with windows on two sides that could be opened for a view of a generous village square. There was no village as yet, except for a couple of other houses under construction. People still lived in their old village two hundred yards to the south. They had been told to clean up the place, eliminate the ubiquitous pigs by fencing them out, and dig latrines. They interpreted this to mean they should build a new village and stop living like “kanakas.” My house was supposed to be the vanguard for changes to come, but they were coming very slowly. People in the Eastern Highlands of Papua New Guinea, like most people everywhere, were resistant to change.
I loved the Highlands. It was a beautiful place with high mountains on both sides of the valley and shades of green that seemed infinite. The air was so pure and clear you could see for miles. Across the valley was the perpetually cloud-covered Mt. Michael where lightning storms were a nightly occurrence. Our village was built on a slight ridge- top in a sea of kunai grass, the result of centuries of burning and cultivating. In the distance to the east were two huge and solitary klinki pines, one a bit smaller than the other. The people said they were married. Our area was not as heavily populated as further to the west, but where there were villages you could see neatly patterned gardens of sweet potatoes, yams, beans, tapioca, bananas, and other staples. Near the villages were stands of bamboo and casuarina. Looking across the valley at night, villages were identified by fires and often singing. The songs were unintelligible to me but as emotional and moving and timeless as anything I had ever heard. It was a moving, even romantic experience.
Virtually every European I had encountered before I began my work had insisted the natives would steal everything I owned. Nothing of mine had been stolen. After an awkward beginning the people had proven themselves to be friendly and helpful although it was clear they had no understanding of why I was there. They provided me with food while I provided them with salt, tobacco, newspaper, matches, and an occasional shilling or two. I found them to be honest and fair with me and I tried to do right by them. Of course they had some habits and customs I found somewhat repugnant, but I strove to maintain my scientific objectivity. I recall one afternoon in particular.
It was a typical afternoon with sunshine and the usual humidity before the afternoon rain. The villages were mostly deserted as they usually were during the day. I was in my house typing field notes when I looked up and saw Eopave, alone, playing with something. At first I thought he was playing catch, throwing something in the air and catching it as he moved slowly around the bare earth of the square. Then I realized he had a small bird tied by one leg to a thin strip of bark cloth string about six feet long. He would throw the bird up in the air where it would flutter its wings hopelessly and then he would pull it roughly back. I was appalled. It was torture. I couldn’t help but feel for the poor creature. I started out of the house towards Eo to interfere but then thought better of it. He was obviously involved in his play, if one could call it that, and I had always strove not to interfere with whatever it was the natives were doing, preferring instead to simply observe and record their behavior. It sickened me to watch, but watch I did. Eo moved out of my vision for a few moments but then reappeared. The unfortunate bird was exhausted and hanging limply from the string by Eo’s side. It was obviously still alive as it still fluttered every few seconds. Eo had a few sticks and proceeded to make a small fire not far from my doorway. I watched in horror as he then plucked the little bird alive and then held it over the fire, still alive. Satisfied after a short time, he ate it. All of it. I began to feel nauseous and moved away from the window unable to watch any longer. It was the most repulsive thing I had ever seen. I could not identify with it in any way. I was both outraged and enraged. I wanted to grab him and shake him until he understood the enormity of his criminal behavior.
Criminal behavior? When I calmed down I realized, of course, that what was cruelty to animals to me meant nothing to Eopave. The people, being chronically short of meat protein, ate anything and everything: dogs, cats, rats, songbirds, grubs, whatever they could find. Knowing this however did not calm my emotions or lessen my feelings of horror and dismay. I tried to imagine what emotions, if any, Eo experienced as he completed this act. Was he proud of himself for having found a meal? Had he no empathy whatsoever for the tiny bird? Did he even think about it? I’m certain that had I interfered he would have thought there was something wrong with me. I was rather proud of myself for not having intervened. But I knew I would never look at Eo again in quite the same way.
A bit later that afternoon the people began returning to the village. Women came in from their gardens laden with heavy knit-bags of sweet potatoes hanging from their foreheads, bundles of firewood on their heads, and babies in their arms. Men returned, some from the gardens and some from hunting, carrying their ever-present bows and arrows and sometimes a bit of sugar cane, yams, or bananas that were the provenience of men. The women would build fires outside their houses and everyone would share the evening meal, including the pigs, while the children ran wild in play, a routine that had existed unchanged for centuries.
Eopave appeared at my door. “Masta, yumi go now,” he said. It was not a question, nor was it a command, simply a statement of fact, as this was what we often did. I hesitated, not certain I wanted to go, but then reached for my shoulder bag with my notebooks and flashlight, and joined him on our usual afternoon visit. It had proven to be a worthwhile endeavor and I often learned new things of interest. We walked quietly side by side down the bare path towards the old village. Here and there were traces of the palisade that had once protected them from their enemies. I could hear the murmured conversations coming from the village, occasional laughter, and sometimes an argument. The path took us within fifty yards of the men’s house. Located by itself in a dark grove of tall bamboo, it was silent, well hidden, mysterious, and foreboding, an area completely forbidden to women and children. Eo moved closer to me, then in a completely unprecedented act, timidly reached out and took my hand.
LKBIQ:
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Bush has a philosophy?
Bush is going to veto a bill (or maybe already has) that would have expanded medical care for children. He says he will (or has) on "philosophical grounds." What he means is he doesn't want to encourage people to depend on the government for health care because that would take away from the "private sector." In other words, if you're too poor to afford insurance for your children that's just tough (he didn't mention the horror of socialized medicine for some reason - he may have it confused with some kind of venereal disease). In any case, over the years it has become clear to me that he does have a kind of philosophy: "Be rich, sleep and vacation a lot, and screw 'em all" (it's part of being a "compassionate conservative").
I find it harder and harder to write a blog these days. I am weary of saying the same things over and over again. We have reached the point where nothing is news any longer. Gonzales lied to Congress - yeah, so what? Congressman so-and-so was caught soliciting sex in a public toilet - yeah, so what? Cheney is urging Bush to attack Iran - yeah, so what? Condi Rice is going to the Middle East - yeah, so what? Edwards got a $400 haircut - yeah, so what? Romney spent hundreds on make-up - yeah, so what? Bush is a liar - yeah, so what? Dick the Slimy is a disgusting creep - yeah, so what? Buish/Cheney say we should stay the course - yeah, so what? There are clear grounds for impeachment - yeah, so what? What is it they can do they haven't already done many times over? It seems to me a more interesting question at this point is, if these are the things we have heard about, what about the multitude of worse things they might have done we haven't heard about (secrecy, you know - they have to have it).
Roviating Hillary. Hillary apparently had the temerity to ask what the plan was (if any) for withdrawing from Iraq. Now she stands accused of promoting enemy propaganda and undermining our troops, the administration, common decency, international morality, mother and apple pie, and who knows what all else. A perfect attempt at roviation that, I believe, is going to seriously backfire. Hillary, as a Senator, indeed, even as an American citizen, has every right to question the administration about any plan to withdraw. This is especially true at the moment as the administration itself is considering plans to do just that. So there is absolutely no excuse for their intemperate and unjust attack other than to try to slime and smear her in the classic Rove manner. Of course the fact that she is the leading Democratic candidate for President has nothing to do with it. The Bush/Cheney/Rove administration is the slimiest, sickest, most dishonest and disgusting bunch of bastards in the history of the U.S.
LKBIQ:
"To sit alone in the lamplight with a book spread out before you, and hold intimate converse with men of unseen generations--such is a pleasure beyond compare."
Yoshida Kenko
I find it harder and harder to write a blog these days. I am weary of saying the same things over and over again. We have reached the point where nothing is news any longer. Gonzales lied to Congress - yeah, so what? Congressman so-and-so was caught soliciting sex in a public toilet - yeah, so what? Cheney is urging Bush to attack Iran - yeah, so what? Condi Rice is going to the Middle East - yeah, so what? Edwards got a $400 haircut - yeah, so what? Romney spent hundreds on make-up - yeah, so what? Bush is a liar - yeah, so what? Dick the Slimy is a disgusting creep - yeah, so what? Buish/Cheney say we should stay the course - yeah, so what? There are clear grounds for impeachment - yeah, so what? What is it they can do they haven't already done many times over? It seems to me a more interesting question at this point is, if these are the things we have heard about, what about the multitude of worse things they might have done we haven't heard about (secrecy, you know - they have to have it).
Roviating Hillary. Hillary apparently had the temerity to ask what the plan was (if any) for withdrawing from Iraq. Now she stands accused of promoting enemy propaganda and undermining our troops, the administration, common decency, international morality, mother and apple pie, and who knows what all else. A perfect attempt at roviation that, I believe, is going to seriously backfire. Hillary, as a Senator, indeed, even as an American citizen, has every right to question the administration about any plan to withdraw. This is especially true at the moment as the administration itself is considering plans to do just that. So there is absolutely no excuse for their intemperate and unjust attack other than to try to slime and smear her in the classic Rove manner. Of course the fact that she is the leading Democratic candidate for President has nothing to do with it. The Bush/Cheney/Rove administration is the slimiest, sickest, most dishonest and disgusting bunch of bastards in the history of the U.S.
LKBIQ:
"To sit alone in the lamplight with a book spread out before you, and hold intimate converse with men of unseen generations--such is a pleasure beyond compare."
Yoshida Kenko
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The "Reaper"
I cannot get this out of my mind, it's been enraging me the last 24 hours. The "Reaper," the aptly named most recent weapon about to be unleashed on Iraq. I don't know the precise details or description of this weapon as I have seen at least two different descriptions. But it is definitely an unmanned aircraft, fair-sized, that will carry some (anywhere from six to a dozen) missiles, as well as a couple of 500 pound bombs. I think I saw somewhere that it will fly 300 miles per hour and can be controlled and directed by a headquarters in Las Vegas (fun city), some 7000 miles away. As it will be directed at Iraq, a totally helpless target with no air force or anti-aircraft batteries to defend against a relatively slow-moving target, it is sure to be a great success. It is unlikely to be used against Iran as they have an able air force.
This is the most obscene, despicable, filthy, immoral, unethical, disgusting, cowardly, miserable, horrible, evil, vile, outrageous weapon since the atom bomb. At least someone had to fly the bombers over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Think of it! They are going to use this nightmare weapon on helpless civilians in a country that is defenseless. What kind of ghouls would do such a thing? Who gave the order for this? What, in fact, is even the purpose of it other than killing perfectly innocent people? Is this just another chapter of "shock and awe?" Have we lost the "war" so badly all we can do now is just kill as many people as possible before we begin our less than honorable withdrawal? Talk about Dr. Strangelove, this is even more bizarre. I can only think of some military brass sitting in their hot tubs, surrounded by bikini-clad maidens, sipping their mai tais, saying, "just a minute girls, I have to send some more reapers, it'll only take a minute."
This does not make me proud to be an American. In fact, it makes me extremely ashamed.
LKBIQ:
Winston Churchill said it perfectly many years ago: "Science burrows its insulated head in the filth of slaughterous inventions."
This is the most obscene, despicable, filthy, immoral, unethical, disgusting, cowardly, miserable, horrible, evil, vile, outrageous weapon since the atom bomb. At least someone had to fly the bombers over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Think of it! They are going to use this nightmare weapon on helpless civilians in a country that is defenseless. What kind of ghouls would do such a thing? Who gave the order for this? What, in fact, is even the purpose of it other than killing perfectly innocent people? Is this just another chapter of "shock and awe?" Have we lost the "war" so badly all we can do now is just kill as many people as possible before we begin our less than honorable withdrawal? Talk about Dr. Strangelove, this is even more bizarre. I can only think of some military brass sitting in their hot tubs, surrounded by bikini-clad maidens, sipping their mai tais, saying, "just a minute girls, I have to send some more reapers, it'll only take a minute."
This does not make me proud to be an American. In fact, it makes me extremely ashamed.
LKBIQ:
Winston Churchill said it perfectly many years ago: "Science burrows its insulated head in the filth of slaughterous inventions."
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Drugs
Yesterday I read somewhere that our current Drug Czar (whoever he is) announced that those who grow marijuana are terrorists. So how about those who smoke or eat it? They must be terrorists as well, or at least seen as supporting terrorists. If this is so, then at least this part of the war on terror must be seen as unusually successful, just look at the hundreds of thousands of citizens incarcerated for pot. The fact that their lives, and the lives of their loved ones, are disrupted and sometimes ruined all for naught apparently bothers no one in the drug enforcement business. What I want to know is how someone like a Drug Czar gets selected in the first place. As near as I can tell they must look for the most ignorant, ill-informed, and rigid people they can find. They continue to spread the most ridiculous lies about marijuana, I can only guess because they really don't know anything about it and, in fact, don't seem to want to know anything about it. There is no compelling reason Marijuana should not be as legal as liquor and tobacco. This has been known for years and years, and yet some cling to the absurd claims made about this common weed. There is no space here to delve into this in detail but the facts are readily available if anyone wants to find out the truth.
I have always believed marijuana should be legal. Now, after careful thought on the subject (at least careful for me) I have concluded that all drugs should be legal. The so-called drug problem is a purely medical problem that should be handled between a doctor and a patient. It is not a political problem although that is what it has become. Not only is it the case that people's lives are being ruined by their use of drugs (who among us does not use one or more drugs routinely), but there are others whose lives are being harmed if not ruined by their inability to get the drugs they actually need. Doctors have become so fearful of prescribing drugs of certain kinds to certain patients they refuse to do it even though they know full well the patients would be better off for it. The benefits of legalizing drugs would far outweigh any deleterious effects. The fact that hemp cannot be grown in the United States has to be one of the single most absurd laws ever conceived. When I was a child none of the drugs now proscribed were prohibited, even housewives routinely used them, as did many others. Our current drug laws are no more than another failed case of prohibition, causing many to be labeled as criminals and others to be denied adequate medical care. They are, in short, ridiculous and unnecessary. In this country, where the blind continue to lead the blind, and to be stupid and uninformed seems to be no handicap to holding office, don't expect anything worthwhile to be achieved. We just continue on year after year in our abysmal ignorance and seem to take pride in it.
LKBIQ:
"If you cannot read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them--peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on their shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that if you do not know what is in them, you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends, let them at any rate be your acquaintances."
Sir Winston Churchill
I have always believed marijuana should be legal. Now, after careful thought on the subject (at least careful for me) I have concluded that all drugs should be legal. The so-called drug problem is a purely medical problem that should be handled between a doctor and a patient. It is not a political problem although that is what it has become. Not only is it the case that people's lives are being ruined by their use of drugs (who among us does not use one or more drugs routinely), but there are others whose lives are being harmed if not ruined by their inability to get the drugs they actually need. Doctors have become so fearful of prescribing drugs of certain kinds to certain patients they refuse to do it even though they know full well the patients would be better off for it. The benefits of legalizing drugs would far outweigh any deleterious effects. The fact that hemp cannot be grown in the United States has to be one of the single most absurd laws ever conceived. When I was a child none of the drugs now proscribed were prohibited, even housewives routinely used them, as did many others. Our current drug laws are no more than another failed case of prohibition, causing many to be labeled as criminals and others to be denied adequate medical care. They are, in short, ridiculous and unnecessary. In this country, where the blind continue to lead the blind, and to be stupid and uninformed seems to be no handicap to holding office, don't expect anything worthwhile to be achieved. We just continue on year after year in our abysmal ignorance and seem to take pride in it.
LKBIQ:
"If you cannot read all your books, at any rate handle, or as it were, fondle them--peer into them, let them fall open where they will, read from the first sentence that arrests the eye, set them back on their shelves with your own hands, arrange them on your own plan so that if you do not know what is in them, you at least know where they are. Let them be your friends, let them at any rate be your acquaintances."
Sir Winston Churchill
Monday, July 16, 2007
Ready, Aim, Miss
I have just read somewhere that our troops have expended 250,000 rounds for every Iraqi killed. Now that's some marksmanship! The situation is so bad we have now had to ask Israel to furnish us with more ammunition (they apparently have plenty that we no doubt paid for). So what's the problem? Can't they shoot straight? Didn't they have to take basic target practice? Whatever happened to Sergeant York who killed 100 Germans with only 100 bullets? I guess he is no longer an inspiration for our military (who probably never even heard of Sergeant York). I don't know how much each of those rounds cost but I bet they don't come cheap. So who benefits from this apparently random shooting? Don't tell me, let me guess - the arms manufacturers! The military motto when it comes to shooting seems to be, blast away men, there's plenty more where those came from. That's the same attitude they have toward everything the military does. More tanks, more cannons, more planes, more submarines, more battleships, more, more, more. Spending more on "national defense" than all the rest of the world combined just isn't enough. We need more of everything all the time. We need all this equipment and stuff massed at our borders to keep out those guys with the boxcutters.
I hate to admit it but Gonzales was right, the Geneva Convention is indeed apparently quaint. It seems there no longer are any rules whatsoever when it comes to "war." Prior to WWII there were few, if any, civilian casualties and, as far as I know, there was no concept of collateral damage. Women and children, especially, were not targeted. The Nazis, I think, were the first to engage in carpet bombing and strafing. But we joined in quickly and bombed Dresden off the face of the planet when there was really no need to do so. And, of course, we followed it up with an even bigger show, the unnecessary atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since that time no one seems to have been interested in any kind of rules when it comes to wars. But how things have changed since the First World War. Technology has allowed us to kill masses of people without seeing them, engaging them in any way, or apparently experiencing any pangs of conscience or morality. Hey, you're thirty thousand feet up above them, you just press a button and bang, thousands die, including women and children. Collateral damage.
Now we have taken even this a bit further. An unmanned plane that can carry eight missiles and two five hundred pound bombs is about to be used against the Iraqis. This unmanned whatzit can be guided from Las Vegas to attack places thousands of miles away. Isn't this great? We can kill hundreds, maybe thousands, from very far away, all the while lounging in the hot tub or playing the slot machines. This is part of the new morality of war. Kill 'em all, they're just Iraqis. The best part of this new technology, I guess, is that it will only work on totally defenseless "enemies." If your intended victims had an air force of their own, or a sophisticated anti-aircraft system they could no doubt defend themselves from these new robot aircraft. Or if they were really sophisticated like us they could no doubt invent robot anti-whatzits. Think of he potential here - we could end up having robotic wars where no one actually gets killed, just the robots. The team with the best robot wins. Whee! Progress is being made. What country would boast of having robotic killing machines that can only decimate defenseless people? USA, USA, USA, USA! Makes you right proud to be an Amurican. Take your pick, you want universal health care or robotic machines to kill innocent and defenseless people. How about more nuclear bombs?
Bush now says he will convene a meeting of only those countries who want to see a Palestianian state in order to restart the Middle East peace process (the rest of the world doesn't count). For six and a half years he has done nothing whatsoever to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem and everything to make it worse - and now he wants to host a peace meeting? Now that he has no credibility at all? Now that it is far too late to convince anyone that the US is a nonpartisan referee in what is the most serious problem in the Middle East, and has been all these years when he did nothing. Now that he has already agreed to starve Hamas in favor of the Abbas faction? He is obviously crazier than I think he is. No, that is not possible. So good luck Bushie boy, you've done a great job.
LKBIQ:
"In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."
J. Robert Oppenheimer
I hate to admit it but Gonzales was right, the Geneva Convention is indeed apparently quaint. It seems there no longer are any rules whatsoever when it comes to "war." Prior to WWII there were few, if any, civilian casualties and, as far as I know, there was no concept of collateral damage. Women and children, especially, were not targeted. The Nazis, I think, were the first to engage in carpet bombing and strafing. But we joined in quickly and bombed Dresden off the face of the planet when there was really no need to do so. And, of course, we followed it up with an even bigger show, the unnecessary atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since that time no one seems to have been interested in any kind of rules when it comes to wars. But how things have changed since the First World War. Technology has allowed us to kill masses of people without seeing them, engaging them in any way, or apparently experiencing any pangs of conscience or morality. Hey, you're thirty thousand feet up above them, you just press a button and bang, thousands die, including women and children. Collateral damage.
Now we have taken even this a bit further. An unmanned plane that can carry eight missiles and two five hundred pound bombs is about to be used against the Iraqis. This unmanned whatzit can be guided from Las Vegas to attack places thousands of miles away. Isn't this great? We can kill hundreds, maybe thousands, from very far away, all the while lounging in the hot tub or playing the slot machines. This is part of the new morality of war. Kill 'em all, they're just Iraqis. The best part of this new technology, I guess, is that it will only work on totally defenseless "enemies." If your intended victims had an air force of their own, or a sophisticated anti-aircraft system they could no doubt defend themselves from these new robot aircraft. Or if they were really sophisticated like us they could no doubt invent robot anti-whatzits. Think of he potential here - we could end up having robotic wars where no one actually gets killed, just the robots. The team with the best robot wins. Whee! Progress is being made. What country would boast of having robotic killing machines that can only decimate defenseless people? USA, USA, USA, USA! Makes you right proud to be an Amurican. Take your pick, you want universal health care or robotic machines to kill innocent and defenseless people. How about more nuclear bombs?
Bush now says he will convene a meeting of only those countries who want to see a Palestianian state in order to restart the Middle East peace process (the rest of the world doesn't count). For six and a half years he has done nothing whatsoever to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem and everything to make it worse - and now he wants to host a peace meeting? Now that he has no credibility at all? Now that it is far too late to convince anyone that the US is a nonpartisan referee in what is the most serious problem in the Middle East, and has been all these years when he did nothing. Now that he has already agreed to starve Hamas in favor of the Abbas faction? He is obviously crazier than I think he is. No, that is not possible. So good luck Bushie boy, you've done a great job.
LKBIQ:
"In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Apocalypto
I have just had the misfortune to watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. I have never seen such a mishmash of complete and total bullshit in all my life. Gibson threw in every piece of left over crap from all the jungle/savage/Indian/fantasy/ridiculous movies ever made. Of course there was virtually nothing but violence, blood and gore from start to finish with knives, spears, clubs, bows and arrows, death traps, poison darts, you name it. All of this with a story line so absurd it could only appeal to ten year old boys who have never read a book except, perhaps, the most pathetic of the comic books. Mel Gibson should be put away someplace safe where he can deal with his obsession with violence without inflicting it on the rest of us. The dialogue, such as it was, seems to have been written by someone in a convent. They say thank you a lot. Savages, it appears, are highly amused by cruel jokes, mostly having to do with sex (mysteriously there is no actual sex shown). If you are a ten year old boy with time on your hands, a bit of money in your pocket, and want to indulge in an afternoon picnic of unadulterated gore, you might enjoy this garbage. Why has Gibson not made a picture about the Holocaust? It would seem to provide the ideal situation for him to display his violent obsessions to the fullest. Oh, I forgot, the Holocaust never happened. I'm sure he could make it up. He has a truly vivid imagination when it comes to complete and total schlock.
Saturday night. Not much happening. I guess this is the night our politicians make their rounds of the brothels and public restrooms. That's okay. They need to relax and be ready for monday when they can continue their work of doing nothing constructive and raising money. Poor Hillary and Edwards, if they just didn't have to put up with any of the other candidates think how they could collect even more money and stand out. I guess Obama isn't in on the conspiracy, at least not yet.
I never thought I would find myself rooting for Pootie Poot. But I am. Along with Chavez, he seems to be one of the major world leaders who has retained a bit of sanity and actually has his countrymen behind him. According to Bush and McCain, things continue to go well in Iraq and we are making progress (except for that pesky problem over their oil that they refuse to give up). McCain is now among the walking dead. How soon will Bush/Cheney follow?
LKBIQ:
"Is it wicked to take a pleasure in spring, and other seasonal changes? To put it more precisely, is it politically reprehensible, while we are all groaning, under the shackles of the capitalist system, to point out that life is frequently more worth living because of a blackbird's song, a yellow elm tree in October, or some other natural phenomenon which does not cost money..."
George Orwell
Saturday night. Not much happening. I guess this is the night our politicians make their rounds of the brothels and public restrooms. That's okay. They need to relax and be ready for monday when they can continue their work of doing nothing constructive and raising money. Poor Hillary and Edwards, if they just didn't have to put up with any of the other candidates think how they could collect even more money and stand out. I guess Obama isn't in on the conspiracy, at least not yet.
I never thought I would find myself rooting for Pootie Poot. But I am. Along with Chavez, he seems to be one of the major world leaders who has retained a bit of sanity and actually has his countrymen behind him. According to Bush and McCain, things continue to go well in Iraq and we are making progress (except for that pesky problem over their oil that they refuse to give up). McCain is now among the walking dead. How soon will Bush/Cheney follow?
LKBIQ:
"Is it wicked to take a pleasure in spring, and other seasonal changes? To put it more precisely, is it politically reprehensible, while we are all groaning, under the shackles of the capitalist system, to point out that life is frequently more worth living because of a blackbird's song, a yellow elm tree in October, or some other natural phenomenon which does not cost money..."
George Orwell
Friday, July 13, 2007
Real questions
Much ado about nothing and nothing to do about something, that seems to be the state of the media in this rapidly decaying country of ours. First the flap over the Hillary/Edwards whispering session. No one seem to have actually heard exactly what they were saying, and no one has claimed they named anyone in particular they wanted to eliminate (from the debate, that is - hold it, I have just been told that although they didn't name names, it was obvious who they had in mind. I'll have to look into this more closely). Hillary seems to have done most of the talking but someone said Edwards initiated the conversation. Wow! It's really important to know that. Hillary also said something to the effect that, "they're not serious." I cannot believe she was talking about Kucinich - or even Gravel for that matter. I think she must have been talking about the so-called "debates," in which case she is absolutely correct. They aren't serious, what with each candidate getting about three minutes to talk and answer questions. It is also true, I believe, that there are too many candidates (on both sides). Some of these candidates have no chance whatsoever of being elected, and they must know it, so they are just on their individual ego-trips. But of course they have every right to run if they wish. It's a free country (oops, I mean it used to be a free country). Someone, Hillary or Edwards maybe, suggested they should break up into smaller groups to debate and select the debaters randomly. That's not a bad idea. I wish it would happen. Here are the questions I would ask:
If you are elected President:
What would you do about the obvious war crimes of Bush/Cheney and this administration?
What would you do about the failed "war on drugs?"
What would you do about the problem of global warming?
What would you do about the failed "war" in Iraq?
What would you do about universal health care?
What would you do about the Israeli lobby and Israel's genocidal policies towards the Palestinians?
What would you do about Afghanistan? Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Darfur? Somaliland?
What would you do about our American "empire?"
What would you do about our obscenely bloated National Defense Budget?
What would you do about our decaying infrastructure?
What would you do about our failing educational system.
What would you do about the enormous gap between the rich and the poor?
What would you do about our immigration problem?
What would you do about our voting rights and questionable electoral system?
What would you do about the separation of church and state?
Don't expect anyone to actually ask any of these questions, at least not in such a direct way. And expect even less that anyone would answer them honestly (except Dennis Kucinich). The system isn't designed ot handle serious, important question like these. In fact, it's designed so the candidates don't have to answer real questions in a serious thoughtful manner. Even if they wanted to answer such questions they wouldn't have enough time. Our elections no longer have anything to do with what is right and proper for the national interest or the interest of ordinary citizens. They are really only about who is going to get the biggest slices of the corporate and taxpayer pies.
Don't count out Paris Hilton, at least not yet. She returned to the networks today once again. It seems she was given special priviledges such as being allowed to use a cell phone anytime she wished and had her mail delivered personally by one of the senior officers. And get this, she was give a new jump suit instead of one that had been previously used and reconditioned. This reminds me of the days when I was for a time a sort of half-assed administrator and had to listen to complaints about the relative size of staplers and whether or not someone was stealing hard-boiled eggs.
There was a very important development in the war on terror today, at least that part of it that involves Osama bin Laden. The Senate voted to increase the reward for his capture from a mere 25 million dollars to 50 million. I guess they felt that the multi-millionaires and billionaires they expect to rat on him would just turn their noses up at a mere 25 million. And I thought only the Lord moved in mysterious ways. Of course they keep insisting that we know where he is. If they know where he is and can't get him anyway, what's the point of the reward? Well, it's nice to know they are finally doing something (no matter how absurd).
LKBIQ:
"I do not mind lying, but I hate innacuracy."
Samuel Butler
If you are elected President:
What would you do about the obvious war crimes of Bush/Cheney and this administration?
What would you do about the failed "war on drugs?"
What would you do about the problem of global warming?
What would you do about the failed "war" in Iraq?
What would you do about universal health care?
What would you do about the Israeli lobby and Israel's genocidal policies towards the Palestinians?
What would you do about Afghanistan? Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Darfur? Somaliland?
What would you do about our American "empire?"
What would you do about our obscenely bloated National Defense Budget?
What would you do about our decaying infrastructure?
What would you do about our failing educational system.
What would you do about the enormous gap between the rich and the poor?
What would you do about our immigration problem?
What would you do about our voting rights and questionable electoral system?
What would you do about the separation of church and state?
Don't expect anyone to actually ask any of these questions, at least not in such a direct way. And expect even less that anyone would answer them honestly (except Dennis Kucinich). The system isn't designed ot handle serious, important question like these. In fact, it's designed so the candidates don't have to answer real questions in a serious thoughtful manner. Even if they wanted to answer such questions they wouldn't have enough time. Our elections no longer have anything to do with what is right and proper for the national interest or the interest of ordinary citizens. They are really only about who is going to get the biggest slices of the corporate and taxpayer pies.
Don't count out Paris Hilton, at least not yet. She returned to the networks today once again. It seems she was given special priviledges such as being allowed to use a cell phone anytime she wished and had her mail delivered personally by one of the senior officers. And get this, she was give a new jump suit instead of one that had been previously used and reconditioned. This reminds me of the days when I was for a time a sort of half-assed administrator and had to listen to complaints about the relative size of staplers and whether or not someone was stealing hard-boiled eggs.
There was a very important development in the war on terror today, at least that part of it that involves Osama bin Laden. The Senate voted to increase the reward for his capture from a mere 25 million dollars to 50 million. I guess they felt that the multi-millionaires and billionaires they expect to rat on him would just turn their noses up at a mere 25 million. And I thought only the Lord moved in mysterious ways. Of course they keep insisting that we know where he is. If they know where he is and can't get him anyway, what's the point of the reward? Well, it's nice to know they are finally doing something (no matter how absurd).
LKBIQ:
"I do not mind lying, but I hate innacuracy."
Samuel Butler
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Delusional, you bet
John Edwards said today that Bush's speech bordered on the delusional. I don't think it bordered on the delusional at all, it was completely delusional. If telling us day after day that progress is being made and that we are going to "win," in direct contradiction to what we know from others who have been investigating the situation, is not delusional, what is? As far as I know the only people who think Bush is not delusional might be McCain and Cheney (but even Cheney probably knows Bush is delusional but doesn't care as it suits his purposes). Boehner and a few other hard-core Republicans still stick with Bush but they must be aware he is delusional. The 29% of people who still claim to support Bush are themselves so delusional they don't recognize it in Bush himself. I don't like to believe that 29% of my fellow citizens are mentally unbalanced but how else do you account for this? Of course there are those like my mother-in-law who would vote for Count Dracula if he were the Republican candidate. She doesn't follow the news (any news), knows nothing whatsoever of contemporary politics, but always votes Republican because she and her now deceased husband always did. I don't regard her as mentally unbalanced, just so disinterested and ignorant she probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. No doubt there are many others just like her.
What do you do when one of the candidates that might otherwise be appealing comes out with a statement so incredibly stupid you can't help but want to just write them off entirely. Hillary, for example (although by no means my favorite candidate) did this a few days ago when she came out with the Republican bullshit line that the probems in Iraq are the Iraqis fault for not being able to solve all their problems (which they didn't have before they were illegally attacked). Barack Obama made a similar statement so stupid that I was immediately turned off to his otherwise attractive candidacy. He said impeachment would be inappropriate and should be employed only for grave offenses (if the Bush/Cheney offenses are not "grave" or even far worse than that, what on earth would be). Not that I would ever vote for a Republican under any circumstances, but Romney is another case in point when he blurted out that we should double Guantanamo (ignore his other obvious lies for the moment). Giuliani says things often that are so incredibly stupid you can only wonder how he ever became more than a local dogcatcher someplace, like, if Democrats get elected we would have another terrorist attack, etc. Duncan Hunter came out with a real doozy: Ann Coulter is a good American citizen. Then there are the two who admitted they did not believe in evolution.
Of course almost all seem to agree with the absurd notion that what we need are 100,000 or more troops to expand our army. I guess they think that spending more on defense than all the rest of the world combined isn't enough, we need still more. I guess we just have to realize that they are all basically nothing but corporate shills, bathing in the hot tubs of greed and profit and demanding more and more cannon fodder. Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul, having scorned the invitation, are regarded as political lepers.
My wife and son are watching some movie in the other room. I cannot see the screen but only hear the sounds. I honestly cannot tell if they are having multiple orgasms, fighting off wild animals, torturing each other, having a cannibalistic feast, maybe on their way to heaven, or enjoying Babette's Feast. It must be some movie, thank god I missed it. On a similar vein, I live in constant fear that someone will somehow force me to watch Mind of Mencia. I suspect there was some kind of mix up in my karma and I was born in the wrong century.
LKBIQ:
"She was one of those elderly 'good sports' preserved by an imperviousness to experience and a good digestion into another generation."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
What do you do when one of the candidates that might otherwise be appealing comes out with a statement so incredibly stupid you can't help but want to just write them off entirely. Hillary, for example (although by no means my favorite candidate) did this a few days ago when she came out with the Republican bullshit line that the probems in Iraq are the Iraqis fault for not being able to solve all their problems (which they didn't have before they were illegally attacked). Barack Obama made a similar statement so stupid that I was immediately turned off to his otherwise attractive candidacy. He said impeachment would be inappropriate and should be employed only for grave offenses (if the Bush/Cheney offenses are not "grave" or even far worse than that, what on earth would be). Not that I would ever vote for a Republican under any circumstances, but Romney is another case in point when he blurted out that we should double Guantanamo (ignore his other obvious lies for the moment). Giuliani says things often that are so incredibly stupid you can only wonder how he ever became more than a local dogcatcher someplace, like, if Democrats get elected we would have another terrorist attack, etc. Duncan Hunter came out with a real doozy: Ann Coulter is a good American citizen. Then there are the two who admitted they did not believe in evolution.
Of course almost all seem to agree with the absurd notion that what we need are 100,000 or more troops to expand our army. I guess they think that spending more on defense than all the rest of the world combined isn't enough, we need still more. I guess we just have to realize that they are all basically nothing but corporate shills, bathing in the hot tubs of greed and profit and demanding more and more cannon fodder. Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul, having scorned the invitation, are regarded as political lepers.
My wife and son are watching some movie in the other room. I cannot see the screen but only hear the sounds. I honestly cannot tell if they are having multiple orgasms, fighting off wild animals, torturing each other, having a cannibalistic feast, maybe on their way to heaven, or enjoying Babette's Feast. It must be some movie, thank god I missed it. On a similar vein, I live in constant fear that someone will somehow force me to watch Mind of Mencia. I suspect there was some kind of mix up in my karma and I was born in the wrong century.
LKBIQ:
"She was one of those elderly 'good sports' preserved by an imperviousness to experience and a good digestion into another generation."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Pink pistols?
I would like to know where I can get a pink pistol. A 9mm glock. According to Bill O'Reilly there are gangs of pink pistol packing lesbians all over the country, attacking men, abducting girls and raping them, indoctrinating children into homosexuality and so on. I had never seen O'Reilly in my life until just now when my son made me watch a clip of this astounding claim. I would have thought it was just a joke but I am told that it is apparently supposed to be serious. O'Reilly was aided in this presentation by some black man he addressed as "detective." I don't think the man was actually a detective but, rather, a "Fox crime analyst" of some kind. In any case, they are both crazy as loons (my apologies to ordinary loons).
It's not enough that we have had to endure Bush's "gut feelings" for the past few years, now we have to endure Chertof's as well. With no evidence whatsoever he has told us that his gut tells him we are about to be attacked by terrorists. My gut tells me that we are about to enter into an endless summer, fall, and winter marathon of hearings about one thing or another, one scandal or another, one legal wrangle after another, one more lie after another, until eventually the 2008 election will be over and some poor soul will be left to try to clean up after this horrendous mess. The failure in Iraq will be blamed on Democrats who refused to properly fund the war and retreated with their tails between their legs. Republicans would have won if it weren't for these Democratic wimps. Deja vue all over again.
It appears that McCain is finished as a candidate. Good. We don't need another warmonger in the White House. However, we still have a problem with Republican candidates. Giuliani is being exposed for the utter fake that he is, Romney has already been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, Fred Thompson is going to sink like an overstuffed windbag with cement boots (what with his trophy wife, having lobbied for abortion rights, leaked right and left during the Nixon era, and so on), at least two of the others are evangelicals who don't believe in evolution (which, I suppose, might not keep them from the Presidency). But all in all I think it is fair to say the Republican candidates to a (white) man are pretty dismal. That is why Hillary will probably be elected. If the powers that be can't have a Republican they will settle for the next best thing, a Republican lite (I'm not so sure anymore if she is merely lite). Anyway, it doesn't look promising for the Republicans.
It seems to me that Bush is proving Nixon was right when he said, "if the President does it, it can't be illegal." Bush has done one illegal thing after another (mostly, I gather, at Cheney's behest) and nothing has happened to him (and it doesn't appear that anything is going to happen to him or Cheney). Stonewalling and litigation will take you a long way, especially when you are up against such timid opponents (if, indeed, they are truly even genuine opponents).
LKBIQ:
"What makes men happy is liking what they have to do. This is a principle on which society is not founded."
Claude Helvetius
It's not enough that we have had to endure Bush's "gut feelings" for the past few years, now we have to endure Chertof's as well. With no evidence whatsoever he has told us that his gut tells him we are about to be attacked by terrorists. My gut tells me that we are about to enter into an endless summer, fall, and winter marathon of hearings about one thing or another, one scandal or another, one legal wrangle after another, one more lie after another, until eventually the 2008 election will be over and some poor soul will be left to try to clean up after this horrendous mess. The failure in Iraq will be blamed on Democrats who refused to properly fund the war and retreated with their tails between their legs. Republicans would have won if it weren't for these Democratic wimps. Deja vue all over again.
It appears that McCain is finished as a candidate. Good. We don't need another warmonger in the White House. However, we still have a problem with Republican candidates. Giuliani is being exposed for the utter fake that he is, Romney has already been exposed as a liar and a hypocrite, Fred Thompson is going to sink like an overstuffed windbag with cement boots (what with his trophy wife, having lobbied for abortion rights, leaked right and left during the Nixon era, and so on), at least two of the others are evangelicals who don't believe in evolution (which, I suppose, might not keep them from the Presidency). But all in all I think it is fair to say the Republican candidates to a (white) man are pretty dismal. That is why Hillary will probably be elected. If the powers that be can't have a Republican they will settle for the next best thing, a Republican lite (I'm not so sure anymore if she is merely lite). Anyway, it doesn't look promising for the Republicans.
It seems to me that Bush is proving Nixon was right when he said, "if the President does it, it can't be illegal." Bush has done one illegal thing after another (mostly, I gather, at Cheney's behest) and nothing has happened to him (and it doesn't appear that anything is going to happen to him or Cheney). Stonewalling and litigation will take you a long way, especially when you are up against such timid opponents (if, indeed, they are truly even genuine opponents).
LKBIQ:
"What makes men happy is liking what they have to do. This is a principle on which society is not founded."
Claude Helvetius
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Stranger than fiction
Is our current political situation truly not stranger than fiction? Who would have thought there could be a country, supposedly democratic, where the leadership is known for months if not years to have committed war crimes and blatant violations of its laws and constitution, and yet nothing is done about it. This in spite of the fact there are rules and laws and mechanisms for dealing with just this sort of thing. Just today there were two more examples of how this administration runs roughshod over everyone and everything. The previous Surgeon General of the country testified before Congress that while he was in office he was muzzled by the White House when he wanted to speak out on matters of public interest like stem cell research, drug laws, and other such matters. Then it was discovered that Alberto Gonzales, our Attorney General, lied to Congress (again). This time when he claimed there had been no violations of the law under the Patriot Act when he had been informed before his testimony that there had been. So once again, he is either lying or too moronic to know what goes on in his own fiefdom. Many Senators and Congresspersons have demanded that he resign or be fired. Bush simply ignores them. And nothing happens. Bush pardons Libby which is said to outrage many, but nothing is done. Cheney runs the country from underneath a rock someplace as if it were his own private set of tinkertoys. Nothing is done. The vast majority of citizens, as well as a majority of our leaders in the Senate and House, rail against the "war" in Iraq. Nothing is done about it. A CIA agent is outed in a treasonous act of punishment. Nothing is done about it. A known male prostitute is given free reign to enter and leave the White House. No explanation has ever been offered. No one could ever have made up a story like this with no outcome in sight. It is surely stranger than fiction. If you had submitted the outline of a movie or book about what is going on it would certainly have been rejected as implausible.
It is true there is talk about doing something. But so far that's all it is, talk. I know the wheels of justice are said to turn slowly. But the violations involved under Bush/Cheney are so egregious they should long ago have been treated as an emergency. These stupid, greedy, evil men still have 18 months left in office. They can easily end the world if they choose (and what they might choose is entirely unpredictable now that they have been slightly wounded). No White Knight has emerged to slay these dragons. Indeed, their only challengers are just like them (except for a couple who are not allowed in the fraternity). We are trapped in a gigantic conspiracy run by huge international corporations that are dedicated to the status quo and will fight to the death to maintain it, little people be damned. Years ago it used to be common to hear people say, "when the revolution comes." You don't hear that anymore. Strange, that.
LKBIQ:
"If you can't beat it, don't knock it."
Anonymous gambler
It is true there is talk about doing something. But so far that's all it is, talk. I know the wheels of justice are said to turn slowly. But the violations involved under Bush/Cheney are so egregious they should long ago have been treated as an emergency. These stupid, greedy, evil men still have 18 months left in office. They can easily end the world if they choose (and what they might choose is entirely unpredictable now that they have been slightly wounded). No White Knight has emerged to slay these dragons. Indeed, their only challengers are just like them (except for a couple who are not allowed in the fraternity). We are trapped in a gigantic conspiracy run by huge international corporations that are dedicated to the status quo and will fight to the death to maintain it, little people be damned. Years ago it used to be common to hear people say, "when the revolution comes." You don't hear that anymore. Strange, that.
LKBIQ:
"If you can't beat it, don't knock it."
Anonymous gambler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)