Strange ideas

Bubblehead: You're right, we don't speak the same language. I never learned to speak "Republican spin." I take it you must have a direct line to the Republican spin machine. The U.N. did not approve of the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq. When they couldn't get the U.N. to do their bidding they, along with their toady, Blair, went ahead and did what they wanted anyway. Virtually the entire world recognizes that this attack on Iraq was a blatant violation of the U.N. Charter, as well as a violation of our own Constitution. Kofi Annan himself, at the time, said it was illegal. There is no way you can spin it as legal, technically or otherwise. The U.N Charter and the Nuremberg trials make it quite clear: pre-emptive wars are the number one war crime. I have no doubt the Iraqis fired on some of our planes. Bush/Cheney were doing everything they could to provoke Sadam into doing something that would give them an excuse. They even considered falsely identifying a plane as belonging to the U.N., hoping it would be fired on. When Sadam didn't bite they just made up their own excuses: WMD's, toppling a dictator, spreading democracy, he wouldn't let the inspectors in, and blah, blah, a web of lies so transparent they never should have been believed, let along promoted by the MSM. Furthermore, when the U.S. and Britain went ahead in spite of the disagreement by the other three voting members, it simply made a mockery of the U.N. You don't notice the U.N. or anyone else eager to jump in and pull us out of the fire. Your suggestion that the occupation (an occupation that is itself violating the rules for such things) might be also considered an "assistance mission" is so absurd as to leave me speechless with disbelief.

After six plus years of "war" and two days of reports, we seem to be exactly where we have been all along, nowhere, kicking the can again, as Eugene Robinson suggested, another six months down the road. Petraeus said we're bring some troops home now. These troops were scheduled to come home anyway and their return has nothing to do with the success of the "surge." We'll be bringing another 30,000 home sometime early next year. These troops are coming home anyway because there are no others to replace them and, again, this has nothing to do with the succeess of the surge. Petraeus also reported that he doesn't know if all this is making the U.S. safer or not, "because he hasn't thought about it." Imagine that, fighting a "war" to make us safer from terrorists but he hasn't thought about it. Ambassador what's-his-name (I don't know why I block on his name every time) says he can't give any dates or ideas about when all of this might end (because, of course, under Bush's non-plan it can obviously go on forever). It has now become common knowledge that Bush's only plan is to keep this travesty going until he can pass it on to the next President (who they believe is going to be a Democrat). The Republicans only hope, I guess, is for another 9/11 type attack sometime before the election. I wonder if even that would make any difference now. Oh, yeah, Crocker, it just came to me. Such is the state of our world right now: probable recession, global warming, never-ending war, endless debt, no health insurance for so many millions, environmental degradation, and whatever. What we need, I guess, are more tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy.

LKBIQ:

"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace....They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches."
Eugene V. Debs

Yes and No

Bubblehead: An interesting question. If Clinton attacked Kosovo entirely on his own, against the wishes of most everyone on earth, I would say yes, that would certainly be a war crime. It is complicated, however, if the U.N. is included. I confess I don't remember all the details of the Kosovo situation. But if the U.N. agreed there was a problem that required a military solution I guess I would not consider that a war crime (and perhaps not, strictly speaking, even a preemptive). But remember, there was no agreement from the U.N. for Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq and, indeed, they were opposed as were most of the nations and people on earth. In any case, Kosovo wasn't attacked to try to control their oil. There must be a difference between a military involvement to deal with an agreed upon humanitarian problem and one designed for purely material reasons. Whether Clinton and the U.N. were guilty of war crimes or not, Bush/Cheney clearly are. Why is it that any criticism of Bush/Cheney is met by Republicans with something about Bill Clinton? Clearly Clinton was no great shakes and had his serious problems (Monica and Whitewater were not truly among them) but he is not responsible for the much greater problems of Bush/Cheney.

As near as I can determine Petraeus and Ambassador Cranky (or whatever his name is) are just telling us once again to "stay the course." But realizing, of course, that sufficient troops will not be available next year they are graciously suggesting very modest drawdowns. The Bush/Cheney shell game continues. I suspect the Democratics will eventually cave once again after pretending to want to do otherwise. I will be very surprised if they don't give Bush another 50 billion as money seems to have ceased to have any actual value.

Rummy has surfaced again and is just as nonsensical as ever. I particularly liked his claim that Afghanistan is a success

An interesting piece on Smirking Chimp today about the draft being a moral abomination. Everyone should read it.

Some guy is going to come out with a documentary extolling the notion of Intelligent Design. What a wonderful waste of time and money. No doubt the evangelicals will eat it up, proof, of course, that there is no such thing. Think about it, would an intelligent designer have ever created human beings, creatures who have fouled their own nest so badly it may well be beyond repair, who kill each other by the millions and take pride in it? I don't think so.

LKBIQ:
"The heart of man is the place the devils dwell in: I feel sometimes a hell within myself."
Sir Thomas Browne

Really?

Well, Bubblehead, your are about to render me speechless with confusion. I scarcely know where to begin. The facts are clear, I believe, that Bush/Cheney and their minions lied to get us into a preemptive "war" against a sovereign country that was no threat to us or anyone else at the time we attacked. A preemptive "war" is a clearly defined war crime. Ignore for the moment the torture, killing of unarmed civilians, use of illegal weapons, etc. The fact that some individual soldiers may have been prosecuted for war crimes is basically irrelevant to this more basic issue. Will Bush/Cheney and their underlings be held accountable for their war crimes? You may be right that I am naive for believing this might happen but whether I am naive about it or not doesn't change the facts. You agree that war crimes have been committed but seem to think only by a few individual soldiers. That, I believe, is naive in the extreme, to say nothing of shamelessly ill-informed.

The insurgents commit war crimes also but only get punished if we catch or kill them. While the insurgents may commit war crimes while trying to remove our illegal occupying forces, they are at least trying to defend their country from blatant aggressors who are trying to steal their resources. Trying to defend your country and your resources is certainly not, in and of itself, a war crime. Premptively attacking a sovereign nation is a war crime.

In the course of this unnecessary "war" hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed and millions displaced from their homes amid untold misery and hardships. Hundreds of our best young people have given up their lives for this doomed cause and thousands more have been seriously wounded and their lives ruined forever. Following your argument, such as it is, this is not evil, because we could, if we wished, kill all of the Iraqis. Thus it would apparently only be evil if we killed everyone. So, Bush/Cheney, having not killed everyone, are not evil. I find this such a bizarre argument I can only conclude you have been drinking too deeply of the Bush/Cheney kool-aid.

Football mania is upon us. I like football, especially High School and College footall. I occasionally even watch part of a game. But, really, football on thursday night, friday night, all day saturday and sunday and then on monday night? Isn't that a bit much? It does help to keep our minds off the "war." What war? Oh, yeah, that "war." It's so easy to forget about it when you're not personally involved. How many killed today? Oh, that many. Gee, too bad. Have some more popcorn, the game is about to begin. Wow! Didja see that hit?

Problems closer to home: I think one of our kittens is spending her nights with a skunk. I know we have a skunk as there are telltale little holes all over the yard. I think the kitten stays out all night with the skunk and then passes out during the day. The other two cats never spend the night out. I have learned from google that it is not uncommon for cats and skunks to get along. I can hardly wait until she brings him home for dinner. I am trying to harvest plums before the deer get them all. They are not quite ripe but the deer are impatient. As there are few huckleberries this year we expect the bears any time now. They find the plums, pears, and garbage irresistible. We no longer feed the birds as the cats kill them and the bears eat the seeds. Its the eternal story of man against nature. Oh, well, things could be worse. We could be Republicans.

LKBIQ:
"Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant, and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president."
Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Ammendment, Yale Law School, September 22, 2002

=

Drones

Bubblehead: I am pleased to hear from you that I am "naive but willing to learn." Tell me, am I naive because (1)I think war crimes are being committed? (2)I expect those guilty of war crimes to be held accountable? (3) I expect Congress to do something about it? Am I to infer from your comment that you think everything is okay because it's just political "business as usual," and that's "just the way things work?"

I read today that for the first time our military has used a drone aircraft to kill a couple of Iraqis. This was a Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capable of dropping precision bombs. I recall that a few months ago I read that we had a robot patrolling the streets of Bagdad. Does this mean that it will become literally true that "he who has the most toys wins?" There is something I find very disturbing about these developments. Somehow it just doesn't seem right. Of course I guess it would eventually solve the problem of not having enough troops to do the job. Indeed, you would hardly need any troops at all, just a bunch of nerds housed someplace where they could play with their toys. It would certainly put a new face on "war." I guess it also implies that the nation with the most advanced technology would always win. If that's the case we had better watch out for Japan, China, and India who are rapidly outdistancing us in the technology area. As far as I know the Japanese have not yet developed one of their robots to kill (being civilized the idea probably hasn't crossed their minds as yet). I'm not sure just how effective a robotic army/navy/airforce would do against a Chinese army of a million or two dedicated soldiers. They could always dig some simple holes as the Viet Cong did, thus rendering the bombing not so useful (unless maybe we used our nuclear arsenal). This whole idea of using sophisticated machines against enemies (who are, after all, people) raises a host of questions.

Not the least of which is the fact that the very idea is (to me, at least) morally reprehensible! I suppose it's just small potatoes for those who routinely drop bombs from 30,000 feet on innocent civilians (I've never been able to consider this quite acceptable either). Oh, well, I guess if Bush/Cheney decide to go nuclear it really won't matter much one way or the other. I guess this is just the way things work in the "real world" (of the totally insane). Who knows what horrible things the weapons people may have in store for us in the future, but you can bet that at this very moment someone, somewhere, is working on a design so fantastically horrible that we cannot even imagine it. What if someone worked out a way to achieve and maintain peace? Naw, the military/industrial/political crowd would never go for that. There's no profit in it. Frankly, I doubt anyone is even working on it. Only a Dennis Kucinich would think of such a thing (Dennis Kucinich - anyone ever hear of him). I've been reading a lot lately about "savages" and "savagery." I don't know why I bother. All I have to do is read the paper and turn on the news.

LKBIQ:
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil."
George Orwell London. UK. 1941

Collective denial

We appear to be engaged in a massive case of national denial. Most everyone seems to go on pretending that nothing is wrong with what is happening. The problem, it seems to me, is not that there is a "war" going on, the problem is there is a horrible WAR CRIME going on. When Bush, for example, in his usual idiotic mode says "we are kicking ass," the response, even by the critics, aside from the rolling of eyes, is that we are not doing that very well, if at all. No one questions whether the kicking of ass is right or wrong, merely that it either is or is not working. This is just one example of virtually all of the criticism of Bush's "war." No one seems to criticize it as a war crime, just that he isn't successful at it. When Huckabee says we need to exit Iraq with honor people either agree or not, but they don't say, "how do you exit a war crime with honor?" When McCain stands by chanting "the surge is working, the surge is working," no one seems to think of this as cheering for an ongoing war crime. There seems to be the assumption that what we have been doing in Iraq is somehow right and proper. It is not right and proper, it is an ongoing blatant, illegal, unconstitutional, unnecessary, greed-driven, criminal act. We had no right to attack Iraq, none whatsoever. Iraq was not a threat to us or anyone else when we decided to attack. They had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Al-Quaida, and nothing to do with WMD's. The claim that everyone thought they had WMD's is just plain bullshit. Millions of people and dozens of governments did not believe that and tried to make it clear they did not believe it. We have no business continuing in Iraq unless it might be to atone for our horrible actions in the first place, which is pretty clearly not what we are about. But we persist, and we listen to those evil people who brought this about as if they have something worthwhile to say about it. We just want the Iraqis to get their house in order politically - bs. We want them to have a democratic government - bs. We are not going to maintain permanent bases - bs. It was not about oil - bs. The surge is working - bs. We're going to win - bs. If we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here - massive bs. In fact, the whole situation is nothing but the most massive web of lies and deceit ever perpetrated on the American public. And as the House of Representatives, the Senate, the MSM, and most everyone else is complicit in one way or another, they dare not admit to the monumental lie we are living, the war crime of the century that is buried in the collective mind-set and transformed into just another example of bringing civilization (democracy) to the savages (the towel-heads). Are there any sane citizens out there who still believe this is a noble enterprise, fully justified, right and proper, winnable, worth the lives of millions, that will have a happy ending and we'll all live in peace and freedom? If so, they must be strange people indeed.

I sincerely wish someone would prove to me that I am wrong about this. The longer this madness goes on the more I believe I must be living in a separate universe from those who support this gigantic fraud. The longer Congress refuses to take any action to stop Bush/Cheney the more I worry about my sanity. Am I finally learning there is no Santa Claus? No Easter Bunny? No tooth fairy? Just the boogeyman? I once had a letter from a friend who was doing fieldwork in Newfoundland. He wrote, "they caught a large halibut today and tied a line around its tail and tied it to the pier where it tries to swim away. That's the way I feel about my life here." Well, my good friend, that exactly the way I feel at the moment about my life here in the good old USA. Cheers and all best wishes.

LKBIQ:
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.": Thomas Jefferson

With honor?

In the "debate" between Ron Paul and Huckabee last night during the Republican whatever-it-was, the latter said we should only leave Iraq with "honor." Doesn't that make you wonder where he's been for the past few years? How can we possibly leave Iraq (which Bush/Cheney have no intention of doing) with honor? We attacked a sovereign nation which was not a threat to us (a terrible war crime), we have killed massive numbers of innocent people, including women and children, we have tortured, insulted, humiliated, and mistreated Iraqi citizens at will, destroyed their country, forced millions to leave their homes, are trying to steal their oil, and Huckabee thinks we can leave with honor? This is about the most bizarre suggestion I think I have ever heard. I think Huckabee is a nice guy and probably well-intentioned but for a Republican to talk about honor at this point is about as silly as their claim that Hillary has two heads and breathes fire out of one and brimstone out of the other. Honor died with the election of Bush/Cheney, for whom the concept is entirely lacking.

Speaking of where someone has been, how about the former Iraqi oil minister who recently said about the U.S. inspired oil proposal, "it looks like the Americans are after oil." This strikes me as naivete carried to extremes never before seen. I am beginning to believe that many people, mostly Republicans, inhabit a completely different universe than I do, a universe in which Guiliani is a hero, Fred Thompson is handsome, McCain is a straight-talker, Romney is in touch with reality, Cheney is Santa Claus, Bush is a military genius, and Hillary Clinton is the devil incarnate. The whole business would strike me as hilarious if it were not so pathetically and horribly serious. You don't even have to suggest "bring on the clowns," they're already here (along with the ones in Congress standing around sucking their thumbs).

Larry Craig thought for a moment he had a choice. He doesn't. The salmon are breathing a sigh of relief, along with me. The Senator from Boise-Cascade is finished. Otter should appoint Bill Sali to the position, but only if he promises to stay out of public restrooms. Speaking of that, do you think all the Republicans will be able to travel to their convention in Minneapolis without using the public restrooms? Ah, Republicans, amusing but poisonous.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. There is something fundamentally wrong with a culture that requires so much storage.

LKBIQ:
"Herein lies a riddle: How can a people so gifted by God become so seduced by naked power, so greedy for money, so addicted to violence, so slavish before mediocre and treacherous leadership, so paranoid, deluded, lunatic?" : Philip Berrigan - Source: Hell, Healing and Resistance Veterans Speak

Supervised hot air

I see that the Republicans held another so-called debate. That is, another two hours of supervised hot air. I confess I don't see the point of these group sessions. So-and-so is given a question to which he gives a perfectly predictable answer. Then they go on to repeat the performance with the next guy in the barrel. Predictable questions, predictable answers. What bothers me the most about these performances is that I know full well that whatever they say in the context of one of these "debates" will have no necessary relation to anything they might do in the future should they become President. It's not that they are lying, it's just that you know they are saying whatever they're saying because they want to be elected. Getting elected and performing in office are not always related. Remember, for example, the "compassionate conservative" BS we were treated to in the 2000 fiasco. I tried to watch but it was so hopeless I quickly went back to playing solitaire. We never should have allowed them to start running for President two years in advance. Who makes these kinds of decisions in the first place?

The Craig situation is so dismally absurd there isn't much to comment about. I should think that even if Craig could win whatever it is he is trying to win he would never be cleared of his own idiocy. He has made himself and the State of Idaho laughingstocks, especially himself. "I have a wide stance." "I was just picking up a piece of paper" (off a public bathroom floor?). "I am not gay, and have never been gay" (even though people in Idaho and probably Washington D.C. have suspected for years that he was gay). His claim to not being gay is like the little boy who cried wolf too many times, no one really believes him anymore (even if, in fact, it were to turn out that he is not gay). He's in a deep hole. He should stop digging.

I have been reading some ethnographic classics of late, including The Todas by W.H.R. Rivers (1906). This must have been the most sexist society ever. First, they commonly practiced female infanticide. Second, they practiced polyandry. When a woman married she married her husband's brothers as well (and sometimes even some other man). Fatherhood was not established by physical paternity but, rather, by performing a ceremony that, when completed, gave the man who performed it the legal fatherhood. After the woman had two or three children another man could perform the ceremony and then he would be the legal father of the next children. When one of the husbands was visiting the woman he would leave a sign outside her door signaling his presence. Women were allowed no part in political, economic, or religious life. They were relegated to trivial tasks such as fetching water, firewood, and embroidery. Toda women were widely regarded as much less intelligent than men. When female infanticide was banned by the British administration the brothers would simply take two wives instead of one. In other words, as I read this, women were plain and simply brood mares, completely at the mercy of men and with no other meaningful tasks. I hesitate to call them sex objects as I don't think that describes the situation very well. I know nothing whatsoever about present day Toda life but I'm pretty certain it is no longer like it was, sexism carried to the extreme.

LKBIQ:
"I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men and where a profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property."
Alexis de Tocqueville

Surprise! The Surge is Working?

Is anyone surprised that Bush is claiming that the surge is working? Did anyone think he might say it wasn't working? Having checked his story with Petraeus they are going to insist that progress is being made and we have to continue as we are, but holding out the possibility there might be some troop removal at some unspecified date if some unspecified conditions are met and they really have no choice having devastated our military. Bush has made it clear he wants the "war" to continue in such a way as to make it necessary for the next President to continue it. What the hell, it's only a few thousand more lives that will be lost while we continue chasing our tail in Iraq for Bush/Cheney's amusement.

Now Craig is hinting that he may not resign after all. He only pled guilty to a misdemeanor, not a serious enough offense for the ethics committee to bounce him (maybe). He has apparently hired some hot-shot lawyers to help him and he might try to beat the rap. I think it is unlikely that he will succeed in this attempt. But I must say it is an interesting situation. Craig insists he is not gay. I suspect he believes he is not as he has not apparently ever lived a gay life style, no long term lover, married (with three adopted children), no outward signs for the most part, and so on. I suppose there is some question about having casual sex in men's rooms. Does that mean you are really a homosexual or just a guy that likes a casual fling in the men's room once in a while. Then there is the question of why he pled guilty in the first place. He says it was merely to get it over with. That may be true, but it is probably true in the sense that he gambled that by pleading guilty, paying his fine, and getting unsupervised probation, no one would ever find out about it. If he had refused to plead guilty he would have had to stand trial or at least would have been involved with some bad publicity. Why not take a chance that no one would ever know? He lost.

Given my suspicious mind there is another possibility that occurs to me. This may be another of Rove's brilliant ideas. Why not encourage Craig to keep this story running? How much have you heard about Gonzales of late? And this is just the moment they are trying to hoodwink us into extending the surge and also possibly attacking Iran. From their point of view Craig's misery is a good thing, and you can bet they wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice a Senator from Idaho for the cause (especially when they know he will be replaced by another Republican).

If this is not true, Craig's decision to challenge his conviction must be raising all kinds of troubles for the Republicans. Otter is all set, for example, to name a replacement for him, and there are several potential candidates that will be affected. The Republican sex scandals have been multiplying of late and there are claims that at least four others are about to be "outed." This is certainly not the kind of publicity Republicans look forward to and it will certainly not help them with their evangelical base. People in show business sometimes claim that no publicity is bad publicity. I don't think that holds true for politics.

Remember the other day I was pleased to report that my mother-in-law had finally figured out that Bush was, shall we say, less than desirable as a President. Alas, she came right back with another zinger that placed her right back with the rest of her Republican friends. Al Gore, she announced, is a buffoon. Now I have known my mother-in-law for quite a long time, long enough to know that buffoon is not a word in her working vocabulary. This means she is merely repeating something one of her right-wing friends has told her. This gives one a lot of insight into the way Republicans think (or don't think would be more like it). Here is Al Gore, ex Senator, ex Vice-President, winner of an academy award, quite likely a winner of the Nobel Prize, a man who has been right about everything while the Republicans have been wrong about everything, and they want to label him a buffoon. I think it should be obvious where the true buffoonery lies. I suggest that if Gore doesn't enter the race, or be drafted by a split convention, Hillary will be the candidate. I believe this was decided by the powers that be a long time ago. We'll see soon enough.

LKBIQ: (Blue: yes, some of them come from a couple of books of quotations, some from a book on Churchill, some from other books, some from family or friends. Does it make a difference?)

"I am gross and perverted, I'm obsessed and deranged,
I have existed for years, but very little has changed.
I'm the tool of the government and industry too,
For I am destined to rule and regulate you.
I may be vile and pernicious, but you can't look away,
I make you think I'm delicious with the stuff that I say.
I'm the best you can get.
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozing out from your TV set.

(Frank Zappa)

What is the point?

Does anyone know why Bush made a quick trip to Iraq? What was the point? Perhaps he went to confer with his pet General, Petraeus, just to make sure they had their stories straight. Maybe he and Condi just wanted to get away for a couple of days. Of course there's always the photo-ops. The troops can't very well refuse to stand next to their Commander-in-Chief when he wants a picture taken with them, even though they probably think the only thing he might be able to command is a chicken coop. Does anyone believe the troops are inspired by his visit, especially when he didn't even bring the fake turkey? And what was Condi doing? Reminding him to pack his shaving gear? I hate being so cynical (well, not really) but I cannot imagine any particular good coming from this visit.

There is increasing talk about attacking Iran, taking out all their facilities in three days, and so on. Very frightening. It would, of course, represent still another blatant war crime. But I guess if you've already committed war crimes what difference would one more make? If this attack actually materializes I believe it will constitute the most unnecessary and insane act ever committed by the United States. If Congress does not act to stop this they will be fully complicit in this insanity and should eventually face criminal trials just like Bush/Cheney. Even now I cannot believe they will actually go through with this act of utter madness. And again, it will all be based upon lies so obvious no one but children could possibly believe them.

LKBIQ:
"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner."
Aristophanes

Banff

I haven't been blogging for a few days due mostly to circumstances beyond my control. First, my mother-in-law and her boyfriend have been visiting. We decided to take them to Banff and Canmore as they had never been there before (strange, as they've been virtually everywhere else on earth). Do you have any idea what six hours in the car with your mother-in-law is like? Well, it's like that. It was a nice car trip except there was nothing to see but mountains and trees, mountains and trees, mountains and trees. The famed wildlife that is said to exist turned out to be one rather moth-bitten mountain goat lost on the highway. My wife informed us that it was a long-horned goat. Sigh.

After much contemplation I decided that Banff must be an Asian word that would freely translate as "tourist trap." The place is absolutely overrun with Asians. I say this not because I have anything against Asians but, rather, as a matter of fact. Asians everywhere, taking pictures, and more pictures. The streets of Banff, if you walk along them, are lined with shops of various kinds. They seem to be either mostly owned by Asians or at the very least feature Asian employees. Some speak passable English, some not so passable. For the amount of a downpayment on a house you can purchase a sweater knitted of Musk Oxen wool. There are also shops that sell fossils and rocks, interesting but also expensive. Then there is the Native Art which is not in my price range by a longshot. The shops that are not too expensive for me are too cheap for me, selling tons of Chinese made junk that apparently pleases the kids. As the main street of Banff is now completely torn up there is a nice layer of dust over everything. I think they are going to replace the street with the gold they make from the tourists. Everything is expensive: food, beer, wine, cocktails, gas, whatever. I had a shrimp (prawn?) cocktail for $18. I confess I thought it was a bargain: nine huge shrimp with a vodka laced sauce (if you know the price of those huge shrimp you will recognize a bargain). The view from the hotel is itself worth the price (as they well know).

Of course it is awesomely beautiful. The rockies viewed from Banff and Canmore are virtually unreal, towering as they do high above everything, a few of them still dotted with snow at this late summer day. Lake Louise maintains its beauty year after year although the glacier is noticeably shrinking.

I didn't write a blog on our first night there as I was too exhausted (mother-in-law syndrome). The next night (31st) I actually wrote a blog, or started to anyway, but was cut off because our 24 hour service stopped just as I started and it was too late to worry about renewing for another 24 hours. Upon our return yesterday afternoon, after another few hours in the car with you-know-who I was speechless. Besides, there wasn't much to say. Ho-hum, another Republican sex scandal. There have been so many of late I've lost interest. I did ponder just how wide a stance one has to have to reach down and pick up a piece of paper but, as Leno pointed out, "who picks up paper from the floor of a bathroom?" I thought that was a good question.

There is a lot of talk about attacking Iran. I guess Dick the Slimy is egging on our dimwitted pretend "war" President. Could even George Dubya possibly be that stupid? I fear he might be. We will soon hear from Bush's pet general (Petraeus) that the surge is working and we should "stay the course." Bush will ask for, and probably get, another 50 billion for his hobby "war." He likes it when his soldiers act bravely while being picked off for no good reason. I guess most the Democrats like it too. The vast majority of American citizens don't like it, but who cares what they like, they're just peasants. Tell them gays or Mexicans are going to take over and they'll do anything you want. Oh, and warn them all the time about the dangers of socialized medicine (like medicare, medicaid), that has worked for years and years. We wouldn't want to be like the rest of the industrialized world, would we? Of course not, socialized Commie bastards that they are. What do they know about health care?

I picked zillions of beans and the first of our corn. We had an absolutely scrumpious feast, a frenched rack of pork with all the wonderfully fresh accompaniments. I'm certainly glad I assigned my wife the duties of cooking (just keep 'em in the kitchen kicking and screaming, that's my motto).

My mother-in-law, as I have told you before, has automatically voted Republican all her life. But today, for the very first time, she said, "I voted for Bush but I didn't know he was going to turn out to be such an asshole" (she has a way with words). Bush is, of course, finished. Someone should tell him. He still thinks he's king (why shouldn't he if no one tells him differently).

LKBIQ:
"Criticism in the body politic is like pain in the human body. It is not pleasant but where would the body be without it?"
Sir Winston Churchill

Why bother

Why bother to continue with this farce that is the "war" on Iraq? Everyone seems to know more or less what is going to happen. Petraeus will give his report that will support Bush's contention that progress is being made, the surge will continue. Bush will ask for more billions to waste on this ridiculous attempt to steal oil (how much oil might we have purchased from Iraq by now for the trillion dollars invested in this nonsense? Congress will be divided but will eventually give in to Bush's demands (after all, it's not like it's real money). Bush and Congress will continue to simply ignore the wishes of the American people who want our troops home soon. The 47 million citizens without any health insurance will continue without it because, after all, to do anything else would be immediately labeled "socialism" by Republicans (and some conservative democrats). Our infrastructure will continue to deteriorate because it's more important that billionaires and corporations get more money than to fund routine maintenance. New Orleans will continue to be neglected because, after all, it's mostly black, and condos for rich people are more important than decent housing for minorities and poor people. You think I'm being pessimistic and cynical. Wait and see.

Once when I was playing in a poker game in the back room of a bar one of the players was Joe. The female bartender who was on shift came back to report, "Joe, your wife waits without." Joe said, "without what?" She replied, "without you, you stupid son-of-a-bitch." This is precisely the way I feel at the moment about Congress. All of the problems continue to wait without. Health care, Iraq, infrastructure, the national debt, etc., etc. All these problems wait while the stupid sob's in Congress continue playing their silly political games and raising funds to keep themselves in the game. This is what our formerly great nation has become, a sleazy game played in the back rooms of our corporate masters for stakes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the public good. The public good? Hahahahahaha. The public good, that's a good one.

LKBIQ:
Man is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men."
Benjamin Disraeli

Don't just stand there

There is a story that when a nervous Don Rickles was first making it in comedy by insulting people and whatever, the first time Frank Sinatra entered the room where Rickles was doing his act, Rickles supposedly said, "don't just stand there Frank, hit somebody." Sinatra apparently liked it and they became friends. I have no idea if this story is true or not. Doesn't matter. This is exactly the way I feel about the Democrats at the moment, don't just stand there, do something! The Bush/Cheney Presidency is imploding before their eyes and they are just standing there gawking like a bunch of cretins. They won't even act to impeach Cheney, the most impeachable official ever to abuse his office. Conyers, who I thought had some spine, says it would be a disaster. How could it be a disaster? It's going to be a real disaster if Cheney is allowed to con Bush into attacking Iran. The Democrats seem to believe that the Republicans in the Senate would not vote to impeach Cheney. I'm not certain I believe that is so. Cheney isn't much more popular there than he is in the country at large. Besides, no matter what the outcome, wouldn't it be real fun to watch them try to defend Cheney? What could they possibly say or do that would make Cheney anything other than a warmongering, profiteering, evil influence on our immature puppet President? Democrats seem to think they don't have to do anything, just stand around and watch the Bush/Cheney bunch self-destruct. Maybe that will work but why chance it? It would be far better if they would actually do something to help the process along, like at least threaten to impeach. What goes on in the strange minds that make up our Congress? Damned if I know. My father once told me, "if you get a big man down, don't let him up." This is no time to let up.

Larry Craig is finished. It doesn't matter if he is innocent or not, the publicity has gone too far now to ever allow him to overcome the stigma. Personally, I don't believe he is innocent and, given his record on gay rights, etc., I have no sympathy for him. If, by some strange quirk he is innocent, he still has brought it on himself and his behavior has been far from exemplary. Trying to use his Senatorial card was itself pretty despicable. Well, it certainly helped take the spotlight off Gonzales. Perhaps every cloud does have a silver lining. But I am beginning to wonder if the Republicans are trying to outdo the Catholic Church with respect to perversion and denial. Members of both institutions seem to have a lot of trouble keeping their pants on.

Too bad Mother Theresa isn't around to be nominated for Attorney General. She's about the only person I can think of at the moment who might actually get confirmed. Why don't Bush and Cheney resign? The jig is up. They are finished. Why waste time? Of course it would take at least a tiny, tiny scrap of decency and accountability, qualities certainly lacking in these two war criminals. I guess given the Democrats timidity and cowardice, plus the Republicans swallowing all the kool-aid, we'll just go on surging until doomsday, which I think is probably not that far off.

LKBIQ:
"You can't ask us to take sides against arithmatic. You cannot ask us to take sides against the obvious facts of the situation."
Sir Winston Churchill

Mountains to molehills

These incredible Republicans! When something has to do with Democrats they are quick to make molehills into mountains, but when it involves Republicans they are even more quick to try to turn mountains into molehills. Remember all the hubbub about Hillary's cleavage, Obama's wife's remark about keeping your house in order, and the exchange between Hillary and Obama about naivete and experience? The MSM and the Republicans tried to make these trivial incidents into something of great significance. Because they didn't succeed very well doesn't mean they didn't try.

So now, when there are mountains involved, like the resignations of Rove and Gonzales, they tell us it's no big deal. Rove left just because "it was time," and he wanted "to spend more time with his family," about as laughable an explanation as you will ever find. Now Bush insists that Gonzales was forced to resign because a partisan Congress "dragged his name through the mud." Right Bushie, he did nothing wrong. There was no criticism from any Republicans involved, he was not asked to resign by members of both parties, nor was he suspected of perjury and trying to politicize the Justice Department. And all of those lawyers who resigned because they couldn't stand it, they were just soreheads. And of course he just made a kindly social call on Ashcroft who was lying seriously ill in the hospital. None of this had anything to do with any wrongdoing or anything. Poor Alberto! How wronged! It may be one thing for Bush to claim this nonsense, we all know he is trustworthy, loyal, brave, cheerful, kind and whatever. But for other Republicans to seriously claim this nonsense makes you wonder where on earth they recruit these clowns.

Larry Craig (he of the wide stance that picks up imaginary pieces of paper in public bathrooms known as hangouts for illicit sex) finally got caught. People here in Idaho (and most probably in Washington D.C. as well) have known for years he was homosexual but his office consistently denied it and nothing much was ever made of it except in the rounds of the rumor mill. Of course he and his office are still in denial, even though he pled guilty, paid a fine, and is now on probation. What will the NRA do without him, Boise Cascade, the haters of salmon? Too bad we might not have Larry to kick around much longer (makes one almost believe in justice).

There is a rumor going around that Al Gore is losing weight. Go for it Al! Run up and down stairs, chew gum and spit, eat a raw egg with orange juice for breakfast, use the medicine ball, get down to your fighting weight. I'm still hoping to see you in the final event. In case you may have forgotten, Gore has been consistently right from the beginning and Cheney and his neocon gang have been consistently wrong. Why are they still in power? Here's one reason. This is North Idaho, home of the rugged individualists (most of whom are on the dole in one way or another). We don't want no pansy-loving, gun-hating, environmentally conscious, educated, evolution-believing, scripture-doubting, peacenik city slickers telling us how to raise our kids or make cannon balls. No sirree Bob. Bill Sali for President!!

LKBIQ:
"How can a society that exists on instant mashed potatoes, packaged cake mixes, frozen dinners, and instant cameras teach patience to its young?"
Pat Sweeny

Watching TV

I don't know what to make of the absoluely bizarre world of television. I'm not a big television watcher but of course I watch some things. During the course of a week I usually watch The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. I watch Keith Olberman. During the football season I usually watch part of one game a week (usually the last quarter or so). I never watch basketball or tennis or bowling. I never watch baseball except for the annual championship Little League game (won today by some team from Georgia, beating Japan). Sometimes I watch Iron Chef, only because my wife watches it. That's it. I have followed this pattern pretty faithfully for the past two or three years. I can understand the programs themselves okay, it's the commercials I find utterly bizarre.

If you haven't noticed (but of course you have) the commercials are full of things like cookies driving a car and singing. There are talking and singing animals, like dogs and cats and even cows. There are cars with eyes and mouths that sometimes talk. Today I saw a commercial with eyeballs on someone's foot. There are people dressed up like various chemicals that discuss how they are being reformulated, to say nothing of people dressed up as carrots or pumpkins or other vegetables. In one commercial a cat is shown massaging its owner's shoulders and neck. Still others display owners talking to their dogs about their diets. A recent commercial shows a princess kissing in turn a frog, turkey, orangutan, and then refusing to kiss a centaur. Another shows some guys tormenting a creature I guess is supposed to be bigfoot. There are dancing raisins and talking bees, even dancing peanuts. Talking fish are not out of the question, nor are talking geckos, chameleons, and ducks. Are these absurd images supposed to appeal to the child in all of us? Where did the idea of using talking creatures and grotesque automobiles and such ever originate (don't tell me, I know, in the advertising industry). It is as if they have lifted these absurd ideas out of children's books to feed an adult market. I guess it must be successful because they keep on doing it and the anthropomorphic images continue to grow. Someone should do an in-depth study of this strange American phenomena (perhaps someone has but I am not familiar with it?).

If a person from another universe were to land here on earth and try to understand what was important to U.S. citizens from watching tv they would have to conclude that the most important things at the moment are: (1) losing weight, (2) having erections, (3) talking to their doctors and taking drugs, 4) apearing sexy, and (5) vicarous violence. I swear that for the last two years or so I have not seen one single movie advertisment that did not feature violence. I guess I just don't watch the right programs. Actually, there was one just the other day having something to do with a High School musical that didn't seem to feature violence. Could this be a trend? Not a chance. I have to admit that these commercials, taken in their entirety, represent to me a pretty sick society.

Other things I regard as kind of strange but are commonplace in our society have also to do with commercialism. For example, why do we have to pay for magazines that are mostly full of ads for various products. The people who run the ads have to pay, why should the viewers have to pay also? Shouldn't magazines and newspapers just be given away (in fact, in rare cases they are). And why do car manufacturers, who make their profit on every vehicle they sell, encourage us to buy them on time so they can add interest to their profits as well (and we rather eagerly allow them to do this)? I guess these are really dumb questions for someone who resides in such a capitalistic country. For me, the longer I live in this culture, the more surreal it becomes. It's like living in a culture of the absurd. I think I should have stayed in the New Guinea Highlands, closer to nature and reality. It had its problems but absurdity wasn't one of them.

LKBIQ:
"Politics is the science of how who gets what, when and why."
Sidney Hillman

Beware of Boise

Boise, as far as I ran remember, has always meddled in the affairs of North Idaho. When I was a child in Wallace, which at that time was a boom town, with mining and logging in full swing, Boise would periodically pretend to close down the gambling and prostitution that was flourishing. My father, who was a gambler, would usually spend a night in jail. One night only, and sometimes not even that long. Only long enough for the mine owners to get on the phone and tell Boise that they couldn't operate the mines and keep miners in the region if they (the bluenoses in Boise) were going to shut down the gambling, etc. It was all a complete and total farce. Boise knew it, we knew it, but it occurred periodically just the same. Later, when I was eighteen or thereabouts, I worked for a time as a bartender. Of course I wasn't old enough to legally do that, but I did it just the same. Periodically I would be warned that the "inspectors," or whatever they were, would be visiting, and I would not work for a couple of days. This meddling by Boise was just regarded as a nuisance that we in the North had to put up with.

Quite a few years ago there was an important homosexual scandal in Boise. A large number of people were involved and it kept creeping up and up the social ladder until, finally, it just seemed to disappear. Obviously it had reached too far up the ladder and was quietly squashed. Only one person went to jail, ironically a young man from Wallace. I doubt that his being from Wallace had anything to do with it, but I always thought it was interesting. This scandal was important enough that a reporter traveled to Boise and wrote a book about it. The book was entitled The Boys of Boise.

I think we have a new bunch of boys of Boise. They are not homosexuals but, rather, politicians, and just like the Boiseans of old, they seem to think they should run the state democratic party as they choose. I don't know exactly who belongs to this group but they are miffed at Larry Grant because he didn't always follow their advice and refused to pursue the out-of-state financial support they recommended or hire an out-of-state campaign person. In spite of this, Grant came very close to winning, losing to Bill Sali who had the support of Cheney and the Republican party (they were so desperate to hold on to a Republican seat they spent lots of money and put up with Sali even though he was hardly a respectable candidate). The boys of Boise now say that Grant lost because he didn't campaign hard enough or follow their advice. The argument that he didn't work hard enough is exactly what people always say when someone loses a fairly close race - if only he'd worked harder, etc. But now that Grant has demonstrated it might well be possible for a democratic to win in this reddest of red states, Rand Lewis has entered the race, but more importantly, it is common knowledge that Walt Minnick is making phone calls and is rumored to enter. Thus it is that Boise has never ceased their meddling in the affairs of the North (and East,West,and South, for that matter). I do not wish to be dictated to by Boise and I will continue to back Larry Grant who I believe is as fine a candidate as one could ever find. Certainly a breath of fresh air after the completely useless religious bigot, Bill Sali, who just votes no on everything and therefore might as well not vote at all.

LKBIQ:
"Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
H.L.Mencken

Bush the historian?

Bush gave a speech the other day to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he mentioned various incidents in history. I didn't see or hear all of this speech (of course, I have to protect my health) but I saw some video shots of it. There was Bush seriously (or at least pretending to be serious) quoting history as if he knew what he was talking about. It was hard to keep from laughing out loud because you know damn well he doesn't know any more about history than he does about anything else (which is pitifully little). He desperately needs a new speechwriter. One that will not try to allow him to portray himself as knowledgeable about things he knows nothing about. I suspect the speechwriter him or herself doesn't know much about history as the comments about Japan and Iraq, for example, were simply absurd. And of course his references to Vietnam were pathetically wrong. If Bush is to have any credibility for his speechmaking they should be written more along the lines of Dick and Jane or My Pet Goat.

There's nothing like having your act together. General Petraeus says we will need to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. General Pace is rumored to favor withdrawing up to fifty percent of them in order to maintain our military strength. Warner says we should bring at least 5000 home by Christmas to "send a message to the Iraqis." Ron Paul thinks we should bring them all home as they shouldn't be there in the first place. On the democratic side Obama says we shouldn't ever use nukes, Hillary says he shouldn't say that. All of the democratic candidates want to maintain troops in Iraq presumably forever, except Kucinich and Richardson who want them all home now. One might think that a competent leader, claiming to be managing a "war," would somehow have consulted everyone and created a plan that most everyone would agree on. Bush, however, has no plan. Has never had a plan other than his endlessly repeated "stay the course" plan (I guess that might qualify as a plan). It is common knowledge at the moment, among sentient beings at least, that the "surge" is not working, at least not in the way it was intended to work (to give Iraqis time to get their political act together). So why shouldn't we bring our troops home? The magic word that no one seems to dare utter is OIL. We want Iraqi oil to profit the huge oil corporations and the Iraqis (stubbornly) want it for themselves. How is it that the single most important variable in this Iraqi disaster is almost never mentioned? Why does virtually everyone insist we have to leave troops in Iraq "to protect our interests" but they don't mention oil which is our interest. Aside, that is, from our heartfelt desire to bring peace and democracy to the area (at the point of a gun). Bush is apparently hoping that historians of the future will not recognize crime and incompetence when they read about it. Can he be deluded enough to believe that history will somehow exonerate him? I fear he might.

LKBIQ:
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose that is unattainable."
Howard Zinn

Rove, salivating

I believe that Karl Rove is out there actually salivating over the Democrats problem, at least what I think he may perceive to be the problem. In my amateur analysis of last night I didn't go far enough to consider all the possibilities and I dismissed Edwards far too casually. I think my basic position is quite likely correct but it needs some fine tuning. I could be totally wrong (and certainly not for the first time) but I believe Rove and the Republicans would prefer Obama as a candidate. Why? I hate to be so blunt, but because he's (horrors) black (and black enough for them). There is considerable doubt in my mind (and I know I'm not alone in this) that the U.S. is ready for a black President. I doubt that any polling will ever get a truthful answer to this question as most people won't admit to having doubts about a black President. What comes out in the voting booth might well be a very different thing. Furthermore, I have grave doubts that the U.S. is ready for a black woman as First Lady. I could be wrong about the American public in general but I'll bet the Republican "base" is not interested in either a black President or a black First Lady. And if the base comes out in droves it will spell trouble for Democrats. Somehow I just don't believe that all those southerners, NASCAR fans, and ultra-right religious nuts are ever going to accept the Obamas. It is most interesting that this point of view is apparently shared by many black people. Many of them say they can't support Obama because they just plain don't believe the U.S. will vote for a black.

This leads us to Hillary. If Rove can't have Obama to slime and slander the next best thing would be to have Hillary. Why? Because in addition to her negatives she is (gasp) a woman. If Americans aren't ready for a black President, are they ready for a woman President? I'm sure many are, but I'm equally sure many are not. And those that are not are probably pretty much the same as those who won't want a black. It is easy to forget that the question of a woman President has not been answered. It may unfortunately get answered in the voting booths. Will all those who pay lip service to a woman President put their votes where their mouths are? Alas, I think that remains to be seen. Interesting that here in Idaho there are some fine Democrats that might considering running for office but won't if Hillary is going to be the candidate. Why? They think every nutcase in the state will come out of the woods to vote Republican. They are probably right.

This leads me to John Edwards. Some in the Democratic party believe that Rove and the Republicans fear Edwards and that is why they may be trying to steer people into voting for Hillary or Obama. Why fear Edwards? Because he is a white male with what it might well take to get elected (I remind you that every American President has been a white male and people are very resistant to change). I am trying to see this from the perspective of Karl Rove and the Republicans, this does not represent my own particular views on the candidates. Frankly, I'd vote for a long-haired dachshund before I'd vote for any Republican, after their absolutely disgusting performances for the past fifteen or sixteen years. As far as I am concerned none of them have even a shred of credibility and I no longer even listen to whatever their latest bouts of insanity lead them to.

LKBIQ:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest excercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith

Much ado...

I hope all the "leaders" get back from their vacations soon. The MSM is bad enough when they're around, focusing mostly on the trivial and nonsensical, but it's even worse when they're not around. Witness the big to do about Mrs. Obama's remark about running your own house before you can run the White House. Drudge and the rest of the Republican nitwits are insisting this was a slam at Hillary. If you look at all of what she said it probably had nothing to do with Hillary. But even if did, so what? Hillary's family seems to be just fine, a long term marriage, successful daughter, successful parents, what more would anyone want. Oh, yeah, Bill's "affair" or "affairs," depending upon who is talking. So, their marriage had some bad moments, who hasn't? Republicans keep carping about Bill but you don't notice they say much about the veritable tidal wave of pedophilia that has surfaced in Republican quarters lately. They want us to believe that Bill Clinton is the only Washington big shot to have sex in his office and take advantage of a poor "innocent" little girl from Southern California (who initiated the affair and eagerly participated). Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds (think Gingrich, among others). For years they have been warning us about Hillary being ambitious and wanting to be President, and etc. Hasn't anyone ever told them that in America ambition is a good thing? I confess I'm so fed up with Republicans of all kinds that I don't even bother to listen to them anymore. The whole scene has become surreal. Bush babbles on as if anyone cares anymore what he says, and everyone pretends to listen even though they know he's the biggest liar ever to hold the office. It's like we're all marking time in some strange insane asylum, waiting for a new director who may or may not prove to be any better (whoever it is he or she can't possibly be worse).

Some are now suggesting that Rove and others are roviating Hillary because they actually fear Edwards. I don't think so. This makes little sense to me. I should think they should prefer Obama to be the Democratic candidate, given the not so subliminal racism that infects the country. All this talk about Obama not being black enough, making fun of his middle name, his early education and so on. He should be a great target for their bigotry. McCain having been falsely accused of having a black child is nothing compared to what they can do with Obama. And not only that, wait until they start in on Mrs. Obama being the first lady. Personally, I would welcome a black first lady but I wonder if the majority of the country is prepared for such an eventuality. I tend to doubt it, cynic that I am. Of course no one could accuse Republicans of being racists, think of Condi and Powell (and then count all the black votes Republicans get, think of New Orleans, think of poverty and unemployment, health care, etc.). Obama wouldn't have a chance against Rove and the Republican attack machine (aided, of course, by their lackey newspapers and tv stations). I should think it is more likely Hillary is being attacked by Rove because he really wants Obama, never mind the reverse psychology hypothesis. But, then, who knows what goes on in the minds of evil, power-mad, greedy, unscrupulous Republicans who don't even have the decency to resign when their resignations are long past due?

LKBIQ:
"The abundance, the solidarity, and the splendour of the results already achieved by science are well fitted to inspire us with a cheerful confidence in the soundness of its methods. Here at last, after grasping about in the dark for countless ages, man has hit upon a clue to the labyrinth, a golden key that opens many locks in the treasury of nature. It is probably not too much to say that the hope of progress--moral and intellectual as well as material--in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity."
Sir James George Frazer - 1890

Auschwitz a New History

I have just finished Auschwitz a New History by Laurence Rees, 2005, Public Affairs, New York. This is a detailed and pretty definitive account of the evolution of Auschwitz and a number of other concentration and death camps. I think most people think, as I always have, that the Nazis constructed the camps and then began killing Jews, Gypsies, and others. In fact, they started killing first and the evolution of the death camps came about by the necessity for them to find better and easier ways to do their dirty business. There were pragmatic reasons for what they did as well as ideological ones. For example, the use of poison gas to kill inmates came about because of the trauma experienced by the soldiers that were forced to kill men, women, and children by lining them up and shooting them: "...as all the leading Nazis focused their attention on the war against the Soviet Union, the decision to kill the women and children in the East was seen as a practical way of solving an immediate and specific problem.
Nonetheless, this particular 'solution' would, in turn create further problems and, as a result, new killing methods would be devised which would enable Jews and others to be murdered on an even greater scale."
This came about because Heinrich Himmler visited Minsk when such killings were taking place. It was obvious that the soldiers ordered to perform these cold-blooded face-to-face murders were terribly traumatized by having done such a horrible thing.
"...SS Obergruppenfuher (lieutenant-general) von dem Bach-Zalewski, who witnessed the same killings, said to Himmler, 'Reichsfuher, those were only a hundred...Look at the eyes of the men in this Kommando, how deeply shaken they are! These men are finished for the rest of their lives. What kind of followers are we training here? Either neurotics or savages!' Subsequently, Bach-Zalewski himself became psychologically ill as a result of the murders, experiencing 'visions' of the killings in which he had participated."
As a result of this experience Himmler ordered a search for a method of killing that would result in fewer psychological problems. This fairly quickly resulted in the use of poison gas that could be administered by just a few individuals dropping the Zyclon B into the death chambers that then had to be created for this purpose. Thus, as a result of mechanical problems, along with problems being created by the ebb and flow of battles, as well as the political considerations, the true death camps emerged.
This is a fine, well-researched account of what transpired, based upon interviews with both surviving victims and active participants. As many of the participants were very old by the time Rees and his aids interviewed them, they had become quite willing to admit what they had done and why. Not surprisingly they mostly acted out of hatred for the Jews they had been taught from childhood. Indeed, many thought even to the end that what they had done was right and proper because "of what the Jews had done to them" (Germany).
The accounts of the surviving victims are not for the faint-hearted, and of course it is a depressing book that makes clear what human beings are capable of given their circumstances. This is not a pleasant thing to think about, but, I suggest, a very important thing to think about.

LKBIQ:
"The savage in man is never quite eradicated."
Henry David Thoreau

Compared to whom?

Karl Rove has making the rounds of talk shows emphasizing Hillary's "flawed candidacy" because she has a 42% negative rating, the largest negative rating for a candidate ever. Some think he is doing this as an example of reverse psychology - that is, if he's attacking her the democratic base will be more likely to support her and she will become the easiest candidate for Republicans to defeat. Others seem to think Rove is just being honest with his opinion. I don't really care one way or the other (except I doubt that Rove has ever been honest about anything). In any case what does it matter at the moment what her negatives are? The only meaningful question is what will it be compared to whom. If Hillary does become the democratic candidate she will be running against someone. Who that someone is will make a lot of difference with respect to her negatives. Let's say that Giuliani manages to hang on and bullshit his way to the republican nomination. He has to be one of the shallowest candidates ever. He knows nothing about foreign policy, his claim to 9/11 fame is mostly fabricated and his lies about it are catching up with him. Then there is his spotty (to say the least) record of three marriages, the fact that even his children don't support him, and he basically doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time. He's a supporter of gay rights and abortion that will not sit well with the conservative base of the republican party. Do you believe that Hillary's negatives will not be more than balanced out against him? I don't believe it. How about Romney who has proven himself to be a lying, unthinking twit that blurts out utter nonsense like "we should double Guantanamo," and "I've been a hunter all my life." There is the mythological Fred Thompson who so far is not yet declared and has already gone through a couple of campaign committees to say nothing of having already broken the campaign laws and sports a buxom trophy wife. The conservatives are supposed to like him. Maybe so, but he's no Ronald Reagan (actually that's perhaps his best point). Of course there's Huckabee who's been coming on strong, a guitar playing singer who doesn't believe in evolution and is a conservative Christian. The base may well like him. I believe that against any of these candidates Hillary will look great and those negatives will vanish in the voting booths like the morning fog rising from the mountaintops. I am not a fan of Hillary's but if it comes down to Hillary versus whom, I know who I will have to vote for. Much as I don't like to admit it I believe Hillary so far has proven by far the best candidate. If Obama or Edwards don't do something soon it will be all over.

Why would anyone take anything Karl Rove says as true, or even useful. Rove denies he leaked Plame's name to be immediately countradicted by Matthew Cooper who insists that Rove did leak her name to him. Now Rove is claiming the divisions in the country are the fault of democrats! Is this not absolutely typical Rove, projecting your weaknesses on others and claiming their strength to be your own? He has used this technique routinely in his years of lying and cheating. He obviously knows that the public memory is not only faulty but short. When the Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate I guess it was the Democrats who were locking them out of rooms, passing bills without consulting them, extending sessions in order to browbeat their minions into voting their way, and so on. He packaged and sold a sow's ear to a gullible public as a silk purse (however fake it was) and he will do worse if we don't pay attention. Of course maybe he'll be spending so much time with his (grown) family he won't have time to con us any longer. Don't bet on it, suckers.

LKBIQ:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France

War crimes and such

Article 2:1 of the UN Charter: "All members shall refrain from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state."

As far as I know virtually every group that wishes to bring charges of war crimes against Bush/Cheney include war profiteering as one such crime. For example, the World War Crimes Tribunal: 14 "Exploitation of federal contracts for profiteering in the course of war." The Green party as well suggests that the conspiracy between oil giants and the U.S. government to exploit Iraqi oil is an example of war profiteering and therefore a war crime. Clearly war profiteering could come under other categories such as looting or plundering and would obviously be considered a war crime.

Of course Palestinians could be just as guilty of war crimes as Israelis. Why would anyone think otherwise?

What about aggressively and premptively attacking a sovereign nation that was not a threat? Killing innocent civilians? Torture? War crimes or not?

I fully expect to eventually hear Republicans argue that there cannot have been any war crimes because, technically, war was never declared. I guess the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the untold misery wrought was merely some kind of cosmic accident that would have occurred even without Bush/Cheney or any oil?

I do not believe that Karl Rove is an evil genius. I do believe he is evil. I say this because in his position of power for six and a half years he could have done many things to better the lives of Americans. I cannot think of one single thing he did for the public good. It's true that he helped the obscenely rich get even richer. I guess the rich think that's good. But it was done at the expense of everyone else, the not rich. Rove seemed to be interested in only one goal, that of furthering the power of the Republican party and trying to insure they would remain in sole control of the U.S. forever. Of course he also promoted a wishy-washy know-nothing candidate into the Presidency, certainly not a positive development in American history. He did not resign "to spend more time with his family." So why did he resign? What can we expect as an encore?

A very welcome break in the weather. It's actually cool here at Sandhill. There was rain. Not enough to do any good but rain nonetheless. I am reading a new book on Auschwitz. Interesting but depressing, of course.

LKBIQ:
"I am sure we do not want any fingers on the trigger. Least of all do we want a fumbling finger."
Sir Winston Churchill

Explain it to me

I believe it is true beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration is guilty of war crimes. Yet no one seems to want to mention this. They lied to lead us into a pre-emptive "war." This is a known and widely agreed upon war crime. They have indiscriminately killed civilians, many women and children, another war crime. They have used torture, still another war crime. They have engaged in blatant war profiteering, a war crime. They admitted to hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, a war crime. They have inappropriately used banned weapons such as cluster bombs. In Fallujah they reportedly closed down hospitals, to say nothing of almost completely obliterating the city. They have brutalized and killed unarmed civilians. There are no doubt other offenses as well that we know nothing about. No one seems willing to bring this up or discuss it, certainly not any of the candidates for President. At the same time they talk about bipartisanship, joining hands across the aisle, reaching out to the other side, etc., etc. Would someone please explain to me why this is so? Is it to just be "bygones are bygones" and these horrible crimes are going to be forgiven, just "boys will be boys?" No accountability? The whole world has been watching this for the last six and a half years. Do you think they are not aware of what has happened and who is responsible for it? Now they are threatening to attack Iran for completely trumped up reaons, still another war crime. Please, someone, anyone, demonstrate to me that I am wrong about this. Show me these things didn't really happen, that I'm just making it up. I don't want anything to do with this bunch thugs. I just want them to go away, preferably where justice might take them.

I recently acquired a rare and most interesting book. It belonged to the Theological Faculty of St. Something-or-other (I can't quite make it out). They must have had this volume in their library for quite a long time. Interesting that no one seems to have read it. Almost all the pages are uncut. Better watch out for those theologans.

Do you think anything will ever happen? Politically, that is? I mean, what with vacations and all you might well think we have no problems that need solutions. Perhaps it's better if they stay on vacation, they will do less harm that way. Do you suppose our troops are enjoying a vacation? I mean, after all, it is quite hot over there. As they have stopped eating the fish from the rivers as they feed on the dead bodies, I guess our GI's aren't swimming in them. I hope all the politicians both here and in Iraq are enjoying themselves. After all, they work hard for little pay. Tony Snow says he can't make it on $168,000 a year (plus found, no doubt). Golly that's sad. With the price of gasoline and milk these days he probably can't make it. I guess they need to raise the minimum wage for the elite (again).

LKBIQ:
"The peculiarity of prudery is to multiply sentinels, in proportion as the fortress is less threatened."
Victor Hugo

Blood on the Wattle

I have just finished Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder, a history of the mistreatment and slaughter of the Australian Aborigines. Of course we all know that the Aborigines met much the same fate as American Indians. But Elder's book makes it clear that it was much worse than anyone imagined. This is true because no records were kept of how many natives were slaughtered. Elder mentions several named massacres, but it is quite clear from his account that many more such massacres occurred and were never accounted for. Furthermore, when the Australian settlers weren't engaging in outright massacres they were just routinely hunting and killing Aborigines indiscriminatly. Men, women, and children were mercilessly slaughtered even when they were completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Ranchers would go out specifically to hunt and kill natives, no records were ever kept, very rarely was anyone punished for killing them. On the one occasion when a particularly brutal massacre occurred several whites were actually hanged for their participation. All this accomplished was to make it common knowledge that if you kept secret your raids and killings nothing would happen to you. Indeed, they started insisting that those who were about to participate in slaughtering natives must first take an oath of secrecy. It was understood on the outback frontier that killing natives was perfectly acceptable even though technically British law forbade such a thing. British law was regarded as a joke by those interested in usurping land and protecting their flocks and herds. Elder has done a fine job in putting together bits and pieces of this dismal period of history, a history of the non-stop slaughter of innocent men, women, and children from 1788 right on up to the 1920's and probably beyond. Although these early Australian settlers tried as hard as they could to kill all the natives, and total genocide was their stated goal, the country proved too large and the native population too resilient to be completely destroyed like the Tasmanians. Thus Australia continues to have "an Aboriginal problem."

Apparently all of the Democratic candidates (except Kucinich, who is much more intelligent than the rest) want to spend more money on the military. I regard this as either a form of collective insanity or a confession that they want to further support the military/industrial/political complex that is now in charge of our country. What else can they possibly be thinking? We already spend more money on the military than all the rest of the world combined. What is it we need so despertely that we don't have (other than some form of true leadership)? Where is the threat so great that even more of our national treasure has to be committed? Who is it that is about to attack us, other, perhaps, than a handful of terrorists who will not be deterred by more battleships, tanks, nuclear bombs, or whatever. Those things don't work too well against box cutters and individual terrorists. This military obsession we seem to have is just that, an obsession, with no basis in reality whatsoever. Kucinich says he would cut the military budget by 25%. I bet you could cut it a great deal more and do nothing to reduce our actual ability to defend our country. So do Democrats secretly believe in an American Empire such that we will pre-emptively attack anyone and everyone until we control the entire planet? Why else would we need such an enormous military machine? The fact is, we don't need it for defense, we need it for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, the Carlyle Group, and so on. I fear it's true, the Democrats are just as much involved in this obscene system as Republicans. We need to throw them all out and start over again. Fat chance!

Yes, I considered the idea that Rove is pretending to hate Hillary in order to get more liberals to vote for her and thus insure her candidacy so that Republicans could easily defeat her. After thinking about his attitude towards Democrats in general, I concluded that he probably really does hate her. Perhaps I am wrong. But I don't believe Rove is just a simple political consultant who just honestly offers his opinion. He wants to roviate her and if by doing so he helps insure her candidacy what will he have lost? Either way he wins. Besides, given the Republican record of blatantly stealing elections, if the fix is in again it won't matter who the Democratic candidate is.

LKBIQ:
"The best thing that can be done is to shoot all the blacks and manure the ground with their carcasses."
William Cox, Australian landowner, 1824 (quoted in Elder 1988:42)

Roviating Hillary

Let the roviating begin (actally, it already has). Republicans are planning an all-out campaign to demonize Hillary. But as in the past they have already accused her of everything under the sun, including murder, I don't know what new lies they will concoct. It's interesting in a way as there seems to be three (at least) different Republican attitudes towards fair Hillary; (l) there are, of course, those who hate everything about the Clintons and would never accept Hillary no matter what. Then (2) there seems to be a bunch that think Conservatives could do worse than having Hillary and might actually support her. Finally (3) there are those Republicans that want Hillary as the Democratic candidate because they think she will be the easiest to defeat. Those in the first category (which, I believe, includes Rove) will do anything and everything to try to stop her. No lie will be too filthy to be employed, no cheap shot will be left behind, no slime will be avoided. That's the very nature of roviation. Now that he will not be in the White House (but nearby with his kit of dishonest tools) there is no telling where he might go in this attempt. So far he seems content with just repeating that she is a "fatally flawed" candidate. I don't know if this merely refers to her 42% negative rating or if Rove has some other flaw he believes in that hasn't yet emerged. Of course the White House is upset because Hillary told the truth about them. That is, for them the poor, the middle class, and the troops are simply invisible. She says it is true. I believe it is true. The little blond who doubles for the unfortunate Tony Snow said Hillary's claims were outrageous, apparently because she thinks Bush made drugs more affordable (which is very questionable and irrelevant in any case). They don't appear to have any better defense. The truth hurts.

Now it turns out that the long awaited report in September from General Petraeus will actually be written by the White House. Does anyone even wonder what it is going to say? Things are working, stay the course, shift some troops around, give the Iraqis more time, etc., etc. What a complete and utter farce. Bush will demand more time. The Democrats will doubtless give it to him, gutless wonders that they are.

Now Obama is saying that Hillary is too divisive and that he can bring the country together better than she can. There is little doubt that Hillary is divisive. Whether than means Obama can do better may or may not follow from that. Obama says he wants to reach out to Republicans, to bring the country together. What I want to know is why should anyone want to reach out to a bunch of greedy, murderous war criminals? That is exactly what the Republican Party has become in the past few years and they continue to stick with this murderous bunch no matter what. Who needs them? Get rid of them. Put them on trial and in jail where disgusting war criminals belong. I for one do not want to see bipartisanship with the current Republican Party. I want them to be held accountable for their crimes. It may turn out that divisiveness is precisely what the American Public desires, no more cuddling up with Bush/Cheney's insane schemes, wiping the slate clean and beginning again with a real democratic administration. I can't see that Obama understands or wants to understand the true depths of depravity into which the Republicans have fallen. If he did he would not want to make nice with them. I am not a big fan of Hillary's but I admire her willingness to stand up and expose the Republicans for what they are: greedy, capitalistic warmongers, getting rich off the taxpayers who are constantly becoming poorer, and ignoring everyone else.

LKBIQ:
"They were nothing better than dogs, and...it was no more harm to shoot them than it would be to shoot a dog when he barked at you."
Reverend William Yate, 1835, Australia, quoted in Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder (1988)

Silly Sali

Bill Sali says he believes in religious freedom - apparently only provided it is Christian freedom. He maintains that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles and therefore we should only rely on the God of the Bible. How does he reconcile this view with the fact that one of the very foundations of the nation rests upon the belief in religious freedom. A Hindu is not free to offer an opening prayer in the Senate? A Muslim is not supposed to be elected to the House of Representatives? While Sali says he respects religious freedom this is not what the founding fathers envisioned. So what does he think they envisioned when they insisted on religious freedom? That only Christians should have the right to open the Senate with a prayer? Sali wants to pretend that he's not a religious nutcase but unfortunately he is. Unhappily that will no doubt get him lots of votes here in Idaho where the God of the Bible has been protecting us and allowing us to flourish all these years. At least he would if Sali didn't vote against virtually everything proposed for the benefit of the country. Sali should simply be laughed out of the Congress, fool that he is.

I really don't want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate for President. She is much too Republican for my taste. But I have to admit she is clearly coming across as by far the strongest candidate. She is extremely knowledgeable about most of the issues, she stands her ground and is confident, and she rarely, if ever, makes a real mistake. Obama makes great speeches, sound and fury signifying not much of anything (so far). To my mind Edwards comes across as a little boy trying to argue with his mommie. After his terrible faux pas with the Gays I think Richardson is probably finished. Biden and Dodd are not serious candidates. Kucinich is the best of the lot but the powers that be have already dismissed him as irrelevant. Gravel is an interesting nuisance but nothing more. I have said from the very beginning that Hillary is the chosen one and so far I believe that is happening. Where is the White Knight?

The hot weather continues. Part of our garden has pretty much been wiped out. We are thinking of moving, perhaps to the Olympic Peninsula. The thought of moving is terrifying but perhaps...

LKBIQ:
"The uttered part of a man's life, let us always repeat, bears to the unuttered, unconscious part a small unkown proportion. He himself never knows it, much less do others."
Thomas Carlyle

Never say goodbye

The only man in the world to successfully convert a sow's ear into a silk purse (however fake), known as turd blossom or Bush's brain, has resigned from the White House as of the end of this month. Do not say goodbye. I don't believe Rove will disappear from the political underground, the "dark side," as Cheney likes to say. I don't know what Bush/Cheney/Rove are up to but you can be sure it does not bode well for the country. Perhaps he plans to join Cheney in his underground bunker beneath the secret rock to plan the further destruction of the Democrats. He certainly is not resigning "to spend more time with his family." Indeed, for him to even suggest that is insulting in the extreme, little more than thumbing his nose at us once again. He is quite likely planning how to defeat Hillary whom he thinks will be the (fatally flawed) Democratic candidate. Of course he could merely be advising Bush/Cheney on how to get more troops killed while stealing more money from the taxpayers, or taking more food from the mouths of babes, or shortchanging our returning veterans, or ridding New Orleans of more blacks, or any one of a number of Republican priorities. Wait and see, but expect the worst. I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that he may have cut a deal with the Democrats - I'll resign if you just forget about all of my transgressions. That sounds like the kind of ridiculous deal our gutless Democrats might go for. They seem to have already forgotten about impeachment so why not let Rove off the hook as well.

The MSM have written Kucinich off as a candidate. They have decided that he is a non-candidate and have "disappeared" him. They seem to agree that there is only one choice at the moment and that is Hillary. This is a win/win strategy for the corporate powers. If Hillary loses the general election they get another Republican, if she wins they get a Republican lite. Clever, no? Of course this can't work if Gore were to enter, or if Obama could somehow get the nomination. They are not about to let this latter happen. It's not clear what they will do if Gore were to enter. I think they regard his entry as improbable. I have no idea what the relationship between Hillary and Gore might be at the moment. I believe only Gore could keep us from just plain "more of the same."

LKBIQ:
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
William Tecumseh Sherman

Senator Craig's world

Our senior Idaho Senator, Larry Craig, just published an Opinion piece in our weekly paper, The Bonners Ferry Herald. The title of this somewhat questionable piece is "Where is the Fiscal Responsibility?" Seeing this headline I assumed he was going to criticize the current administration for blowing an enormous budget surplus and turning it into the greatest national debt ever. I should have known better. It is a piece critcizing Democrats (the usual Republican crap about tax and spend). It makes me wonder if he has lost his mind. He says, for example, "Republicans, myself included, define fiscal responsibility as keeping taxes low and managing the growth of government spending. Democrats define it as raising taxes to increase spending." He is apparently unaware of the national debt and the fact that government spending has increased dramatically during the Bush/Cheney administration. So where has he been for the past seven years? I guess he wants to keep taxes low to insure that fewer children will get medical treatment, returning veterans get short-changed, more bridges will fail, we will continue to have forty million plus with no medical insurance, and etc. And of course he doesn't comment on making the rich richer and the poor poorer when he speaks of his tax policies. Given the facts of the matter I find his editorial insulting. No one who supports the Bush/Cheney administration (as Craig does slavishly) has any business lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility. This Republican administration has been the most fiscally irresponsible in all of our history. It's been just borrow and spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend. Indeed, Cheney said early on that we have learned from Saint Ronald that deficits don't matter. I guess he won't be around to explain that to our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay for his illegal war and blatant war profiteering. Craig's views on this matter are not only insulting, they are completely absurd.

Having followed Craig's not very illustrious career in the Senate I have developed an idea of how he thinks (or, more properly, doesn't think). I once received a letter from him that, among other things, claimed that we might still find WMD's in Iraq. This was after everyone, including Bush himself, had admditted there were no WMD's! I believe that Craig has certain ideas about things that he retains and promotes in spite of the reality around him or any recent developments or conditions. He actually believes that it is as simple as Democrats tax and spend and Republicans are fiscally responsible. This of course has no connection with reality, but he continues to believe it. His voting record indicates the same shortcoming. He just automatically votes for whatever Bush/Cheney desire because, after all, they are Republicans and Republicans are good while Democrats are not good. He's exactly like my mother-in-law who doesn't follow politics, or even the news, has no idea whatsoever about what is going on, but faithfully votes Republican in every election, "because that's what she and her late husband always did." But Larry Craig is a Senator, couldn't we expect more? I believe it is time for this dinosaur of a Senator to step down and leave the job to someone who is more aware of the world around him or her.

LKBIQ:
"Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens."
Michel Montaigne

The Iraqi scam continues

As I have been saying for months, Bush/Cheney have no intention of getting out of Iraq and, I am certain, never had any such intention. Neither, apparently, do any of the Democratic candidates with the exception of Kucinich. We have just been kept in the dark about this with little steps that keep it going. Remember the surge that was going to be for three months to give the Iraqis time to get their act together. Before it even began they were already saying September would be too soon to know, they should have longer, etc. The definitive opinion is supposed to come from General Petraeus in September at which point we were going to decide what to do. Now, before September is even upon us, Petraeus has announced that we will need to be in Iraq at least for another ten years. Bush keeps insisting that things are going well, progress is being made, victory is just around the corner, stay the course, and BS piled on more BS until exhaustion sets in and you just want to tune it all out. Now the lack of progress is being blamed on the Iraqis who, simple savages that they are, just cannot get their act together. They refuse, for example, to "share the oil." We are led to believe this has to do with sharing their oil resources equally between the three Iraqi factions: Kurds, Shiities and Sunnis. This is not, however, what Bush/Cheney have in mind when they speak of sharing the oil. They mean the Iraqis should share by far the greater share with the huge Oil Corporations. The one thing that tends to unite the Iraqis is their shared resistance to doing anything so blatantly foolish. You see, they are not just stupid savages after all, but, in fact, intelligent human beings who know when they are being robbed. There was an old Jack Benny (anyone remember him) show where a robber demanded, "you're money or your life." Benny, with his marvelous timing, paused, and then said, "I'm thinking it over." This fits the Iraqi situation: "You're oil or your lives," and they continue thinking it over, much to the chagrin of Bush/Cheney and their band of thieves.

Well, the totally meaningless Iowa straw poll is over. Surprise! Mitt Romney won after spending only several million dollars in a fake contest in which the frontrunners didn't even participate. I guess this is supposed to give him momentum. Brownback and Huckabee came in after Romney. Why that should excite anyone I do not know. Tancredo, who wants to bomb Mecca, was fourth with Ron Paul fifth. Can you imagine anyone in Iowa voting for Ron Paul? The best thing one might say about this exercise in futility is that Thompson may have been cast aside along with Tancredo.

Hillary the Warlike has slowly increased her lead over the rest of the pack. A poll today showed her with 48%, far more than either Obama or Edwards. I suspect that if Gore does not enter in the next month or two it's all over. Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. Don't expect her to pick Kucinich for her running mate. The Republicans keep clinging to their belief that Hillary will be easy to beat (or at least the easiest to beat). Given the position of the Republican Party at the moment this may prove to be a complete delusion. Look for Dodd as a good possibility.

The only thing that will stop the Iraqi scam from continuing, and possibly being exported to Iran, is impeachment. Alas! This demands action from the actionless and useless who seem to be themselves part of the scam. Unfortunately, inaction is an action, and not the one we need at the moment.

LKBIQ:
"For he who sins a second time, wakes a dead soul to pain..."
Oscar Wilde

Sali strikes again

If the citizens of the State of Idaho are ignorant, narrow-minded, bigoted, racist, and religiously simple-minded, they should be very proud to have Bill Sali representing them. It seems that Mr. Sali is very upset because a Hindu was allowed to give a prayer in the Senate and, horror of horrors, there is a Muslim member of the House of Representatives. Sali believes this is not what the founding fathers envisioned (freedom of religion?) and it will lead to the destruction of our nation (through prayer?). He goes on to say that the only reason we survive is because our Christian God protects us (from Hindus and Muslims?). Remember, this is the same Bill Sali who believes abortions cause breast cancer (in spite of all evidence to the contrary). He's an Idaho Republican so what else would you expect?

If Sali's appaling ignorance and bigotry came spilling out, he was joined by Bill Richardson, candidate for President of the United States. At a discussion of gay rights, Richardson was asked if he thought homosexuality was a choice - and he answered yes! Happily no one fainted or died or a heart attack from an answer so unexpected and revealing. Richardson simply doesn't know anything about the issue of homosexuality - zilch, nada, zero. If he did he would obviously have kept this opinion to himself rather than blurting it out at a conference with homosexuals. He went on to mumble something about not being a scientist (I guess he thinks scientists know the answer but won't tell anyone). Anyway, it was a most pathetic performance by someone who wants to be President and it certainly is not going to help him with the gay vote.

A comment on last night's blog from anonymous said Morialekafa was stupid. He or she didn't offer any particulars as to why. I don't know if he was angry because I suggested Romney was stupid or whether he just has a thing about Professors, or if it is just me in particular. He clearly thinks the name Ekafa is stupid (me too). I may be stupid, but I'm not anonymously stupid.

I guess Dick the Slimy thinks he can be personally responsible for bringing on the Rapture. Why else would he be urging Bush to attack Iran? Where are the men in the white coats when we need them?

LKBIQ:
"Pray, v. To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."
Ambrose Bierce