Bibi Counts His Facts on the Ground

Netanyahu must be basking now in even more pleasure than usual as he has two excuses at the moment not to make peace. He predictably rejected President Obama’s suggestion that peace negotiations begin with the 1967 borders and changes to those borders could be negotiated and settled by various land swaps and such. Bibi apparently didn’t bother to consider land swaps and just announced that the 1967 borders would leave Israel indefensible. I suspect that without massive uncritical U.S. support no Israeli borders would be secure (but perhaps I am wrong). What is truly at stake here are the massive illegal settlements the Israelis have been building for years on occupied Palestinian land, settlements they do not want to give up, and apparently do not want to have to swap much of anything to keep them as they are now “facts on the ground.” Clever, no? It’s like saying to bank robbers, “Well, you already took the money so you might as well just keep it.”

The other reason Bibi must be happy is he can now refuse to discuss peace with the Palestinians because of Hamas. Remember that very recently Hamas and Fatah reached an agreement to merge and operate together to negotiate for a Palestinian state. For years Israel has refused to negotiate on the grounds that there was no viable Palestinian organization to negotiate with. Now there is one, but happily for Bibi, he can still refuse to negotiate because he won’t negotiate with Hamas. So with the 1967 borders out of the question, and Hamas considered illegitimate, Bibi can continue with his plan to keep the Palestinians divided and spread out in such conclaves a viable state will be impossible to emerge. So why is Hamas illegitimate? Because Hamas won the 2006 election, a perfectly legitimate democratic election, but one that did not produce the result Israel and the U.S. preferred. So rather than recognize the legality of the election and the win by Hamas, we withdrew our support for them and labeled them a terrorist organization. While we and Israel claim they are a terrorist organization, Russia, China, and others countries do not so consider them. So, so much for our hypocritical claims of wanting to encourage and spread democracy in the Middle East.

I believe it is obvious that Israel does not want a peace agreement with the Palestinians, certainly not if they have to give up any of their ill-gotten gains, and they certainly do not want a viable Palestinian state for a neighbor. If an agreement is ever to be reached it can only happen if the U.S. and the other world powers drag the Israelis kicking and screaming all the way. There is some reason to believe that enough pressure is building, especially now because of the Arab spring, to bring this about. Basically it will be mostly up to the U.S. to force the issue. President Obama has made an important gesture to the Palestinians, let’s see if he can work the miracle that has escaped all past Presidents (of course even if he did he would not get any of the credit for it as it must be the result of something George W. Bush did).

The Republican circus continues to produce candidates, it appears that Herman Cain is now definite, along with Romney and Pawlenty, as well as Gingrich, Santorum, Johnson, and I suppose Bachmann. Sarah, the Housewife from Hell, is still teasing but I doubt she will run. I sure we can count out Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann. Romney and Pawlenty are not what you might consider heavy hitters but for the moment it seems that’s about it. Huntsman I gather is still thinking about it but he’s much to coy about it and will probably not get in (I think). If employment continues to pick up as it seems slowly to be doing, and if some of our troops begin to come home, and if the economy continues to do well, President Obama can probably take on the whole lot of the Republican candidates with one hand tied behind his back. If that were to happen, and if Democrats manage to take back the House and a few Governorships, it might be possible to go back to running the country once more.

How Dare He!

How dare President Obama suggest that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians should start with the 1967 borders? That is something Palestinians want. Whoever heard of such a thing? Naturally Netanyahu is opposed to even the idea of such a thing, arguing once again that Israel will be indefensible, never mind that they possess the best army in the Middle East plus having the only nuclear weapons, plus having the full support of the U.S. It’s always the same old story, poor Israel, surrounded by Arabs backing the outrageous demands of the Palestinians they be treated as humans. Pro-Israeli lunatics like Alan Dershowitz are outraged, others are accusing Obama of “Throwing Israel under the bus,” and no doubt cries of anti-semiticsm will soon reverberate from virtually every corner of the land (if you care to say anything against Israel it is always anti-semitic).

Poor Bibi! It appears that his racist, basically genocidal plan to prevent Palestinians from ever living like human beings is about to crumble at last, and there probably will be nothing he can do about it except keep stalling until the very last desperate moment. The Arab spring has already, and will certainly in the future, both immediate and long-term, change things in the Middle East, and it is unlikely these changes are going to benefit Israel. Of course the Israelis could, if they wished, act honorably and cooperate in a plan to create a truly fair and completely viable two-state solution in which the Palestinians would have the same civil rights as other people around the world. But heaven forbid the Israelis might have to give up some of their illegal settlements and some of the land they have systematically stolen over the years. Of course I don’t believe that even if Israel is at last forced by international pressure to give in to a solution it will be entirely fair to the Palestinians, but perhaps half a loaf is better than none at all. I must commend President Obama for a brave and sensible position but I wonder if he will treat the Palestinians as fairly as he will the Israelis.

When are people going to admit that Newt Gingrich is a complete phony masquerading as the leading Republican intellectual? He is not only just a plump, over-the-hill, blowhard who blurts out what he seems to think is his latest (usually stupid) revolutionary idea, he has now reached the point of total irrelevancy (or would if the ridiculous MSM would stop showing us his every precious word). For the Democrats sake I hope he stubbornly stays in the race as long as he can (it doesn’t look promising).

I must admit to a kind of strange fascination with the Republican Keystone Kops approach to finding a candidate to run against Obama. They tolerated for a time the greatest phony pretend candidate of all, Donald Trump, until he finally gave in to what he sought, his truly stupid TV show. Then Huckabee finally admitted that he, too, did not want to give up his newfound fame on the idiot box and dropped out. Gingrich, who had no chance, will soon be gone. Haily Barbour said he lacked “fire in his belly” and gave up quickly. For the moment that seems to lead Mitt Romney (who literally oozes insincerity from every pore) as the current frontrunner (and I would guess probably the eventual candidate). But there are still other clowns out there making noises about running. Sarah Palin, for example, who almost certainly will not run (it would cost her money) but has to keep teasing that she might in order to stay newsworthy. Michelle Bachmann, who might run (probably with to no purpose other than gaining fame and party influence).Rick Santorum seems to be seriously running although for the life of me I cannot see why. Governor Pawlenty is still around putting audiences to sleep. There is also the somewhat mysterious Huntsman who seems to be considering a run but is being rather secretive about it. I guess there are others even less well-known. I think the Republican party has decided to let these not very promising candidates just play in the sandbox until 2016 when they will try to find a more potentially viable candidate (if, that is, the party has any credibility at all left by then).

President Obama is enjoying himself immensely no doubt, as he knows that no matter how bad he performs (short of outright disaster), the Republican candidate is going to be worse. And if he brings home a few troops from Afghanistan, employment picks up a bit, the economy shows more signs of recovery, and Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot with one terribly unpopular idea after another, he should win in a landslide (his own mistakes notwithstanding).

True Patriots

After weeks, even months, of blathering on endlessly about how they were thinking about running for President, and how great they would be as President, both Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have both finally announced they are not going to be candidates. This is not at all surprising in the case of Trump as most everyone, including myself, never believed he would run in the first place. Huckabee’s decision is not much more surprising as there were at least some who predicted earlier he would not actually become a candidate. What I find most interesting about this is the completely unserious and cavalier attitudes that were obviously at play. Being President of the United States, probably the single most important position in the world, is not, I think, something one should merely toyed with, but that is what both of these individuals were apparently doing. Our country has serious problems at the moment, two (or more) “wars,” an out of control national debt, a badly divided electorate, problems with Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, Health care, and so on. We desperately need leadership, serious people who would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the national interest, dedicated patriots who are truly interested in seeing us through these difficult times. You might think that anyone who would spend weeks, even months, touting themselves as serious candidates, would be of this type, but you would be wrong, at least in the case of these two phonies. I doubt that anyone took Trump’s donkey brayings about how great he was and how he would be a marvelous President (because of his business experience) seriously. It was pretty obvious he was interested more in publicity than running for President. Huckabee has recently claimed he would be a much better President than Obama, and has been rather outspoken in his criticism of President Obama. He was doing fairly well in the early polls and it appeared he might well have had a chance to at least capture some of the early, more conservative states.


But consider what both of these basically false candidates have done. In the case of Trump, who has some idiotic TV show that pays him lots of money (that he apparently needs in spite of his grandiose claims of fortune) he has chosen to continue that rather than try for the Presidency. Huckabee is no different, he, too, has some TV show, is apparently building an large expensive house, and does not want to give up his new found luxury for the possible (mere) Presidency of the United States. In other words, neither of these jerks were dedicated to the nation or seriously interested either in the Presidency or in solving the problems of our country, but, rather, in their own comfort and well-being. So why did they take up our time for so long with their absurd posturing and false claims? It must have been partly ego and a desire for attention, but in these two cases in particular it had nothing to do with the needs of the nation and everything to do with their own naked self-interest, true fake patriots all the way. Of course neither of them would have been decent Presidents anyway, Huckabee so ignorant and religiously intolerant, Trump so grandiosely ridiculous and phony.

I cannot but believe that running for President ought to be a serious business, not merely a lark engaged in for publicity or ego satisfaction and attention. There is no doubt in my mind that Newt Gingrich is in it for no reason other than his massive ego and belief that he is a really important person, a worthy historical figure (rather than a pathetic has-been or never-was, hypocritical, dishonest faker, willing to say anything at all to further his VIP fantasies). He, too, is wasting our time. Sarah Palin is another one, as are Rick Santorum and what’s-his-face, Cain. Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman are probably the only serious candidates at the moment, and even they are flawed more or less second raters. Unless someone truly unusual and unexpected turns up I fear the Republicans will have to wait until 2016, if they have not completely imploded by then.

I suspect there are at least two reasons the Republican candidates are so unusually weak in this election cycle, (1) they don’t believe they will be able to defeat Obama in spite of their overwhelming desire to do so, and (2) they realize that it doesn’t matter much who the President is as he will serve and dance only at the whims and desires of those “who brung him.”

Patriotism, I fear, is dead. We no longer have leaders with a genuine interest in the well-being of our nation, with extremely rare possible exceptions, they are now all in it for themselves, serving those who pay them well and allow them to continue to serve in office under false pretenses. “The best government money can buy” is no longer just a cynical phrase, it is now an accurate description of how our political system functions.

As an aside, Germany has renounced nuclear energy and Japan has now done the same. Will we be intelligent enough to do the same? Don’t bet on it.

Egos Gone Wild

Apparently the only prerequisite for running for President of the United States, probably the single most important position in the world, is a massive ego. If you want to drive a car you must have a license, if you want to buy a gun you have to pass a background check (at least theoretically), if you want to apply for most jobs you have to show some form of preliminary experience, even if you want to buy something on credit you have to be approved. None of this applies to running for President. That is why we have had Presidents who were peanut farmers, haberdashers, second-rate movie actors, as well as Senators, ex-Generals, Governors and so on. This does seem strange to me, as I think there should be at least some conditions candidates should meet before they decide to run for President, but there aren’t any. As near as I can tell, aside from being an American citizen, at least 35 years of age, and having lived in the country for a certain amount of time, nothing else is formally required. Informally there seem to be two or three conditions, he/she has to believe in religion (only certain religions apply), has to have at least some modicum of support, and has to have an ego larger than life (notice that even sanity is not a necessary condition).

Thus it is that we have candidates for the Presidency that in some cases have no genuine qualifications other than ego. I have already commented on probably the most gigantic ego of all, Newt Gingrich, who has no realistic chance of ever being elected President but seems to be driven by nothing but his gargantuan ego. He seems to believe that he deserves an important place in history (that he has already achieved, being the most egregious hypocrite of all time). But really, what is it that motivates individuals to think they should run for President, or makes them believe they are even entitled to, if it is not just plain egotism? I guess t here are at least two different categories we might speak about, those individuals that might conceivably have a chance of becoming nominated, and those who almost certainly do not have any chance. Aside from Gingrich, in this latter category, are people like Santorum, Trump, Bachmann, Palin, Paul, and other lesser-knowns who are apparently so divorced from reality and egomaniacal they don't realize the obvious. In the first category are people like Pawlenty, Romney, Daniels, Huntsman, Barbour, and perhaps others who might conceivably have a chance, but probably not. This is why even the Republican Party is trying to find more suitable candidates (without much luck so far).

In either case, either with a chance for success or no chance at all, the individuals involved have to be driven primarily by ego. They have to believe they are somehow special enough, talented enough, clever enough, smart enough, or somehow gifted enough to lead the nation (or at least pretend to do so), and they have to be able to convince at least a few others of their superiority. You might think that for a position of such tremendous importance there would be some kind of training involved, or some provision for continuity, or at least some form of relevant experience other than, for example, having been a terrible governor, actor, or businessman. You might even expect, for example, that a Vice-President might be picked and groomed for the position, expecting to run after the President’s term is up. Even that possibility is not followed anymore (if ever it truly was). Joe Biden, for example, is not going to run for President, Sarah Palin was certainly not picked for that eventuality, nor was Harry Truman, Spiro Agnew, Dick Cheney, or others, so who the next President will be is no more certain than who will win big in the next crap game. This is not, I think, “any way to run a railroad.”

This in turn brings up the question of what, if anything, would or should disqualify someone. For years it was widely believed that no Catholic could become President, until John Kennedy managed to overcome that prejudice. It is still most probably the case that a Jewish President is not on the horizon. Of course no one ever dreamed of a Black President, so perhaps anything is possible. A Socialist President is almost certainly not possible, at least in the foreseeable future. But what about a Mormon President, both Romney and Huntsman I believe are both Mormons and are both considered possibly viable candidates. Many people believe Mormonism is little more than a “cult,” and most probably would not accept a Mormon President. This brings up the question of religious beliefs that for people like myself is a problem. I do not really have anything more against Mormons that any other organized religion, but I doubt I could bring myself to vote for someone who believes in magical underwear or other such things, or for some fundamentalist who was opposed to abortion and/or Gay marriage, or insisted on public prayer five times a day. In fact, I doubt I could bring myself to vote for a candidate who did not believe in evolution, or global warming, or science in general. As there is an unspoken or informal belief that no one could be elected President who did not profess some religion and attend church, this means I could probably not vote for anyone, unless I assumed their church attendance was mostly for show rather than serious. But how might one know this for sure?

It is pretty obvious that a massive ego is not enough to get you taken seriously, Gingrich and Trump are perfect cases of all ego and no “meat,” “cattle,” “honesty,” or even honest achievement. But as no one will ever achieve the Presidency with a genuinely weak ego, all we can hope for is someone with enough sense to at least pretend humility, or realize they are not truly fit for the office and stop wasting our time while they massage their egos.

Talking Endless Nonsense

Boise man arrested for walking
nude, wanting to “end his fear
of walking nude in public.”

I have lost all patience for talking nonsense. We seem to be wasting time discussing things that need no further discussion. I am thinking of subsidies for the oil companies. Usually when there is an argument about something there are two sides that can be more or less reasonably advanced. In the case of further oil subsidies for companies that are currently making the highest profits in the history of the world there really is no valid or reasonable argument, and those oil executives who insist there is are just talking nonsense and wasting our time. This is a case so completely absurd it does not require any further discussion, the subsidies are so ridiculous they should not even need to be an issue. The same thing is true of further tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country. In fact, continuing oil subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy are every bit as silly as arguing we should subsidize feathers for birds or fur for Polar Bears. Republicans who insist on arguing otherwise should simply be laughed off the stage and told to go home to collect and save their belly button lint, while allowing serious people to at least try to run the country.

There are other issues that should probably also be settled with no further ado. Torture, for example, as the only people who are defending it are those who illegally and unconstitutionally instigated it. The facts by now seem quite clear, torture (whatever you call it) doesn’t work, the experts have spoken, the research is available, there is no honest argument about it. In any case it is illegal always. There is no reason to discuss it any further, Bush and Cheney and the rest of their criminal conspiracy should be silenced about it once and for all and consider themselves fortunate indeed they are not all in jail. I would include global warming here also as something about which there is no further doubt. It is real, it is happening, mankind is at least partly responsible for it, and it is urgent that something be done about it. There are only two reasons I can think of why this should still be a matter for discussion, either those who deny it believe they know more than the entire cadre of the world’s scientists, or they are so short-sighted and greedy they don’t care what happens to the earth.

Still another even more pathetic subject that seemingly will not go away has to do with evolution vs creationism. The argument that the earth is a mere 6000 years of age was settled in the 1850’s, to maintain otherwise is just talking utter nonsense. Similarly, the existence of dinosaurs existing contemporaneously with humans is even worse nonsense. There is no reason we should have to be now spending time on such absurdities, but we do. We are wasting our time, chasing our tails, baying at the moon, indulging in fairy tales. Those who cling to such outmoded and obviously ignorant views should simply be ignored while serious and informed people try to deal with the real problems that currently beset us.

It seems to me that all of the abovementioned issues are settled, clearly, obviously, and finally. They should need no further attention. I grant there are other issues that are not quite so clear-cut (although these, too, are clear enough for me), abortion, for example. Roe vs Wade is the law of our land, but there are large numbers of citizens who simply cannot accept this. You might think that people should just obey the law and let it go at that. But those who cannot accept this particular law are now going to extreme lengths to try to subvert it in any way they can, by imposing impossible conditions for women who seek abortions, bombing abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, and so on. Although a majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body and life, there is a very large number who apparently do not. It is not at all clear what can ever be done about this problem as those who believe in choice truly believe in it, and those who do not, truly do not. Unlike the above issues that should no longer be controversial at all, this one is substantially different and may not even be amenable to a solution. But surely killing abortion providers and bombing clinics should not be allowed. So here is an issue that should be settled but is not, and no solution even seems possible because not everyone is willing to follow the law. Homosexuality is another case in point. There is no doubt that homosexuals are born and do not willfully choose to be the way they are. Thus laws and discrimination against homosexuality are basically futile and impossible to enforce. But here, again, there are many who are unwilling to accept the fact that this is so, and therefore continue to deny reality and the law. You might think this would be an easy prejudice to overcome but that is not the case. The fact of homosexuality will probably be accepted long before abortion but in the meantime we will continue put up with nonsensical claims and waste time.

All of these issues are not merely matters of opinion, my opinions against others, they are factual matters that should by rights simply be accepted. It is not, for example, simply my opinion that global warming is real, or that creationism is not. Nor is it simply my opinion that oil subsidies are unnecessary. But how do you deal with those who simply refuse to accept the obvious and tenaciously cling to opinions without any foundation in fact or demand impossible solutions to matters of critical importance? I guess you just put up with war criminals, lawbreakers, thieves, and the abysmally ignorant and just hope that someday, somehow, someway, it will all go away.

LKBIQ:
There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity.
Robertson Davies

TILT:
The unicorn was once regarded as a wild, woodland creature that could only be captured by a virgin.

Academic Freedom

Police were shocked, schocked,
to discover nudity and gambling
in Lingerie cafes in Garden Grove.

I don’t know how many people are shocked to learn that the Koch brothers have donated a million and half (I believe that is the right amount) to the Florida State University Economics Department to hire faculty, but only if they have the right to decide who is hired. (and presumably will be able to conrol). I am pretty sure this kind of thing has been going on for years but never before has it been exposed so blatantly. Business has slowly and insidiously infiltrated our schools for years, from the kinds of food served to our children, to enhancing the school budgets for selling their products, the kinds of textbooks available, the funds available for research, and to the quality of the faculty hired and retained. This attempt by business to take over control of our educational system has reached crisis proportions (in my opinion). It can also be seen in its more outrageous form in the recent movement to privatize our schools. Fundamentally, what it means is the abandonment of the very basis of academic freedom.

This shocking development can also be seen in attempts in various states and localities to do away with the tenure system. What opponents of tenure do not tell you, if, indeed, they are themselves even knowledgeable enough to understand it, is that the tenure system was not installed to insure permanence of employment for teachers. It was begun to insure freedom of speech, and to make certain that teachers could not be fired because they were minorities or considered ideas that were unpopular. Even in the tenure system as it exists currently it is entirely possible to fire teachers for incompetence, moral turpitude, or criminal behavior. For the most part elementary schools and High Schools do not usually have tenure systems as such, although they can reward teachers with relative permanence of employment once they have proven themselves. If there are abuses in the system they are not the result of the system but, rather, of misunderstanding, misapplication, or corruption.

The result of having business meddling in our institutions of learning is that it destroys the very basis of academic freedom, the major reason for having education in the first place. If teachers are not at liberty to teach various points of view, if they have to fear losing their jobs for not following some party line, the entire foundation for their existence disappears. This Koch brothers’ shameful attempt to interfere with a University faculty is just the tip of an iceberg that has slowly attempted to do away with free speech and academic freedom. I have seen this before when politicians have attempted to overrule faculty decisions about tenure or other matters. This is dangerous beyond belief to a democratic society. The very idea that schools (and Universities in particular) should be privatized is diametrically opposed to the very idea of education as we have formerly conceived of it. A truly viable democratic system assumes an informed citizenry, no doubt the origin of the public school system to begin with. But public schools, just like public anything, are now accused of being socialistic and as such, taboo in the U.S.

Another place this attack on education can be seen is the increasing use of adjunct or part-time faculty members. If a University can hire part-time teachers they are, of course, cheaper, and there is no question of tenure or even benefits involved. This is a trend that has become more and more prevalent in these times of budget shortfalls. But here, again, this is terribly destructive of our educational institutions, to say nothing of shamefully exploiting faculty.

Universities should be generously funded by states and the federal government. They should not be allowed to be exploited by private interests, nor should they have to fear being unfunded because they engage in education rather than propaganda. Professional schools, like Medicine and Law should not be considered part of a University system unless they are independently financed and do not accept research funds from pharmaceuticals or other business interests, where such exists essentially makes a mockery of education, academic freedom, and even democracy itself.

If a nation, any nation, is seriously interested in its continuation and success it cannot disvalue education, and in fact should give it one of its highest priorities. Our schools should be well funded, our teachers well paid, our Universities kept independent and allowed to pursue knowledge for its own sake with no strings attached. I would personally go much farther and argue that we should have free public Universities where anyone of any age or interest would be welcomed to enroll in classes and even encouraged to do so and thus improve their minds, whether they sought a degree or not. You must have an educated citizenry or eventually perish as a democracy. As we here in the U.S. have come to believe education has no basic value other than perhaps getting one a job, and the educated are regarded simply as “pointy-headed intellectuals,” or those who “teach because they cannot do,” higher education is becoming beyond the reach of most people, and the ignorant are allowed to override the informed as in the case of global warming, we are eventually going to pay a price we cannot afford. It is already beginning to happen.

Today I saw something I have not previously seen. One of Huchabees primary advisors, a woman named Janet Porter, apparently claimed that President Obama was born in the Soviet Union and was bred to be a spy. Where do they find these people?

One of the arguments you sometimes hear about the deficit is that the government is no different than an ordinary family, and just like a family should not overspend its budget. This is of course utter nonsense, but there is another thing about families these people never mention, when Uncle Harry or Grandpa, or some other member of the family becomes so difficult and impossible to deal with, arguing for example, that no additional revenue is needed to pay the bills, or just automatically saying “no” to everything, or that the solution to the family debt would be to send money to the filthy rich side of the family, or by taking food out of the mouths of the children, and so on, they can eventually fall prey to the men in the white coats that come to take them away. Our government cannot do that, pity.

LKBIQ:
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams

TILT:
It has now been established that at least some animals have a sense of right and wrong, hence morality.

What is it...

Chicago man keeps four
foot alligator in kitchen
“to impress women.”

What is it that makes people like Newt Gingrich think they should run for President, or might even remotely be Presidential material? Gingrich is little more than a disgrace to the human race, a failure as Speaker of the House, thrown out in disgrace, quite likely the world’s greatest hypocrite for attacking President Clinton for an illicit affair when he was engaged in precisely the same thing himself at precisely the same time. A man who told his wife while she was hospitalized with cancer he wanted a divorce, a thrice married man who acknowledged himself to be an adulterer, and someone who is willing to tell any lie no matter how outrageous if it will benefit him. Not too many years ago such a despicable person would not even have considered running for President (and probably would not have been allowed to), and would quite likely have completely disappeared from the political scene in disgrace.

I confess I cannot understand it. It seems to me there are three possibilities: (1) Gingrich has concluded (perhaps rightly so) that the political scene in the United States has reached a point so surreal it doesn‘t matter anymore what kind of unprepared person or outright scumbag runs, (2) his ego is so powerful he doesn’t understand reality and how it actually affects him, or (3) he has wealthy and powerful supporters who want him to run for reasons we do not understand, whether he wins or not. And speaking of supporters, just who is it that has given him such huge amounts of money (32 million, I believe) to run, and why? As I do not believe he has any chance whatsoever of ever becoming President, it seems strange to me that people would support his candidacy so generously. Do his supporters really believe he has a chance of being elected? I find this almost impossible to believe. I am beginning to suspect there must be an inverse correlation involved, such that the more generous the contribution and passionate the support, the dimmer the bulb, the fewer cards in the deck, the more sawdust between the ears, the smoother the brain, the lower the I.Q., the emptier the head, and etc.

I suppose Gingrich should get some credit for somehow convincing his Republican colleagues that he is a serious, thoughtful member of the party, indeed, the party’s “intellectual.” Here are Newt’s comment on himself:

“I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.”

The most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times.

I’m not a naural leader. I’m too intellectual; I’m too abstract; I think too much.

The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting industry or private sources is essentially
a socialist argument.

Newt Gingrich - Primary mission, Advocate of civilization, Definer of civilization, Teacher of the rules of civilization, Leader of the civilizing forces.”

He seems to have convinced at least some that he is all of this and more, when in fact he is a nothing but a blowhard pontificator with little more claim to intellectualism than a toad and no more morals than a chicken hawk.

Here are some examples of his intellectualism:

The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting industry or private sources is essentially

a socialist argument.

In Washington, D.C. 800 babies a year are left in Dempsey dumpsers (actually it was 4)

Give the park police more ammo. Newt Gingrich response to a reporter who asked what to do about the homeless a few days after the police thot a homeless man in front of the White House.

Thirty years of hedonism, liberals have driven god out of the public forum, and it is time we put him back in.

It is not difficult to find examples of Gingrich’s outright lying from everything to the dope-addicted Clinton administration to the future of Russia. He is the biggest phony ever. The late Molly Ivins (bless her) summed him up well:

“Newt Gingrich is a draft-dodging, dope-smoking, wife-divorcing, deadbeat dad, which I assure you, meets all the standards of accuracy set by Rush Limbaugh.”

He thinks he ought to be President.

LKBIQ:
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
Frank Leahy

TILT:
The teddy bear was created because of an incident involving President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt while bear hunting.

The Horse Boy - film

I have just watched a documentary film called “The Horse Boy.” This film, produced in 2009, is one of the strangest ideas for a documentary I have ever encountered. Rupert Isaacson is a documentary filmmaker. His wife, Kristin, is a psychologist. They have an autistic son, Rowan, four years old, who has not responded well to any therapy. As Rupert has spent time with the Bushmen, filmed, and was impressed by their healing ceremonies, he and his wife decide to take Rowan to Mongolia to seek out shamans (that are known to still be active there) in the desperate hope that perhaps they can do something for the boy. Mongolia was also picked because the boy has also shown he has some strange affinity for horses, and of course horses are of great importance in Mongolian culture.

So off they go to Mongolia where they made this film (with some juxtapositions with their life in Texas). There are some wonderful scenes of Mongolia as they travel across much of it in a large van and also on horseback. There are scenes that make it clear just how difficult it is to deal with an autistic child as he has terrible tantrums, no control over his bowels, and is difficult to control. They obviously are caring parents and deal with the situations as best they can. With a Mongolian interpreter they do manage to expose the boy to shamanistic rites on some occasions and you get a reasonably good idea of what is involved. You also gain some appreciation of what everyday life in Mongolia, living in both tepees and yurts, is like. They, themselves have tents and are obviously well provisioned for such a journey. Their ultimate goal is to reach the reindeer herders near the Russian border, which they do, and find a powerful shaman who treats the boy in a brief ceremony. He tells them that perhaps Rowan will someday become a shaman himself, but in the meantime at least some of his difficult behavior will change for the better almost immediately. There is not very convincing evidence that this occurs, but the implication is that the boy begins to control his bowels and also begins to interact more normally with other children. Back home in Texas he finally learns, more or less, to ride a horse by himself. The parents believe he has changed somewhat for the better but they make no claims about why this actually occurred. That is, they do not claim shamanistic success, or the strange foreign experience, they merely indicate they believe some change has occurred. If you want some insight into how difficult an autistic child can be, and how difficult it is for the parents, and if you also want some very nice scenes of Mongolia and life there, you will find this film of interest.

I confess to being perhaps unnecessarily suspicious about the whole undertaking. First of all, of course, is the fact that autism is still pretty much a blanket term for a condition no one understands very well. Second, I am having trouble trying to decide whether they were serious about their quest for help or just using the situation as an excuse for making a documentary. There is no doubt they made this difficult trip with hardships along the way, and there is no doubt about the reality of being in Mongolia and encountering Mongolian people. But there obviously must have been a film crew with them, and they obviously were well provisioned along the way. I cannot help but wonder how much they paid the Mongolian shamans for their performances and I therefore also wonder if the shamans themselves were serious about what they were doing or just performing for the camera. I wonder just how serious this trip truly was. Did they really expect the shamans to help their son (or was this (1) just an excuse to make a film and have an adventure, or (2) was it a sincere but desperate attempt to really find some help. Finally, as a documentary film, does it even make any difference?

There is no doubt the Isaacsons love their son, no doubt they are fine and patient parents, and no doubt they wish him well and rightly worry about his future. But I also wonder how much thought they gave to the possible outcome of such a trip. A four year-old boy, already disturbed, exposed to strange people in a strange culture, worked over by strangely costumed adults beating on drums, muttering incomprehensible words, and performing strange rituals over him, and so on. It could have been a rather traumatic disaster. It does not seem to have been. But will anyone ever know for sure what it meant to him, if anything at all? Did they assume that he was so autistic nothing could potentially harm him, a kind of “go for broke” therapy. I do not mean to be unkind, and I assume they were well intentioned, but I cannot help but wonder. In any case, as above, if you are interested in autism or Mongolian culture or both you will probably find this film of interest.

Mindless Republicans

Are there no Republicans at all who think for themselves? Now all 44 Republican Senators have signed a letter (or something) saying they will not vote for anyone to be Director of the New Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (unless it is made essentially powerless). I find it impossible to believe there is not a single Republican Senator who believes in consumer protection. How can this be? This is the same thing they did earlier when they voted as a group for Ryan’s budget plan to gut Medicare. Was there really not a single one who was opposed to doing away with Medicare? They have been doing this all along, at least since President Obama was elected, when they said, again as a group, they would vote “no” for everything he wanted, and for the most part, they did. There is something very strange about this behavior. Senators enjoy a great deal of power, they are important people, one would assume that no one would be elected to the Senate if they were not believed to have a mind of their own and act according to their conscience and/or what is best for the nation. But they don’t. They don’t seem to think it is necessary to think for themselves. They do what they are told. I don’t believe this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned, nor do I believe most Americans think this is a proper way for Senators to behave. They are by now so much financed (bribed) by corporations, pharmaceuticals, big oil, big agriculture, etc. they apparently cannot act independently at all. Big business does not want consumer protection so Republicans are going to insure (if they can) there will not be any. I guess the only positive thing about this is it will apparently give President Obama an opportunity to make a special appointment for Elizabeth Warren who is clearly the best person for the job.

I must say I find it interesting that after three attempts Florida has finally passed an anti-beastiality law. I mean, how could anyone be opposed to such a law? But, then, has beastiality become so commonplace in Florida that it requires a specific law against it? Aren’t there laws against animal abuse that would cover such (presumably rare) cases? Or is beastiality much more prevalent than I think it is? Oh, well, it is Florida.

As it appears we will never know the truth about anything again, and the lies and misinformation about the death Of Osama bin Laden continue, I have decided to ignore it for a time. It is Springtime (more or less) here at Sandpile (I mean Sandhill), time to plant the garden and such. The weather has not been cooperative so I have had to take advantage of the rare moments of rainless days and do what I can. I’ve managed to plant peas, carrots, beets, and spinach so far. Today I planted some asparagus roots as most of our original asparagus plot was destroyed by unusually cold weather two years ago. Most of the raspberries we replanted last year seem to have survived and are beginning to grow. The Green Gage Plum I planted, that the deer virtually destroyed, appears to still have some life in it and is coming back. I will soon be planting the leeks that I started five weeks ago. The huge old cherry tree that bears spectacularly year after year will do so again this year, and the Bosch pears the same. Our blueberry bushes that have never done very well are showing signs of life and all in all, if we get some decent weather this year should be much better than last (never count your chickens…).

More importantly, perhaps, our time has been taken up by charcuterie. My wife is involved in a contest, “Charcutepalooza,” that involves 300 contestants from all over the world. Each month for twelve months there is a different task the entrants are required to attempt. First we did salting and curing and made our own pancetta, then we did smoking and smoked pork sirloin and pork hocks. This month’s task is sausage. Yesterday and today we were occupied making sausage, something we have never done before. We completed this afternoon small amounts of four different kinds of sausage: Italian, Garlic, Fennel, and Merguez (having never tried it before we wanted to see which ones we might like the best and didn’t want to risk wasting a lot of pork and lamb). I am pleased to report, indeed, even proud to announce, that all four of these sausages proved to be quite outstanding (I swear my wife was born to do this kind of stuff). We cooked small amounts of each of them to taste. I thought the fennel and the merguez were the best but they were all delicious. Obviously we are caught up in a movement to grow your own food, and avoid fast foods and factory produced meats and vegetables loaded with chemicals of all kinds. Of course they are also now becoming so expensive one can barely afford them. We are blessed by having friends that raise Highland beef cattle with no chemicals, lambs with no chemicals, and a large meat company that raises both beef and pork completely chemical free. We also have a fine farmer’s market in the summer that supplements our own organic garden. The biggest problem living here has to do with the lack and variety of fresh fish. We do get marvelous flash frozen wild salmon and halibut every year but not much else (we can, of course, get shrimp, oysters, clams and crab sometimes, but never really fresh). We make up for it by occasional trips to the Washington and Oregon coasts.

Such is life here in (alas) Republicanville.

Abandon all Hope...

Dubai woman sues ex-husband
for 12.5 million for not having sex
with her, causing her mental anguish.

Abandon all hope Ye who might wish to know the truth, or even a rough approximation of truth, about anything, anything at all. Truth no longer exists in our supposed democracy. I believe the death of truth probably began with Saint Ronnie’s absolutely idiotic proclamation, “Government is the problem.” I assume he must have received this revelation from Nancy, who in turn must have learned it from her Astrologer. In any case, after hearing this marvelous piece of utter nonsense the Republican Party has been on an obsessive course to try to prove it true. Thinking back on things, I do not remember people distrusting their government anywhere near the extent to which they do now. It is true there were always disagreements about policies and priorities, but by and large we assumed and believed we were being told the truth. I’m pretty certain that most people knew there were occasional government secrets but they did not think secrecy was a major characteristic of government or political life.

We have now reached a point where virtually no one trusts the government or the media to tell the truth about anything. Facts are no longer considered to be different from fictions, even science has been losing its credibility, and people seem to believe anything they wish, even things of such monumental importance they could actually destroy our lives. The denial of global warming is perhaps the best example of this, but there are other claims equally as potentially dangerous, “clean” coal or nuclear energy, for example, or the benefits of privatization and unregulated capitalism. Even things of much lesser importance are grist for the fantasy mills that seem never to stop grinding these days. Even now there are many who still believe President Obama is not truly a citizen of the U.S. and should not be President. Huge segments of our population deny the theory of evolution in favor of outright fairy tales about the age of the earth or people being swallowed by whales, or living with dinosaurs. Some 61% of us at the moment appear to believe that Osama bin Laden is already in hell, a destination known only to those who believe in angels and the happy hunting ground.

The Bush/Cheney administration shares greatly (even more than that) in our present distrust of our government. I cannot remember when they, or members of their administration, ever told the truth about anything. They lied about weapons of mass destruction, the potential cost of the “war” in Iraq, how easy and quickly it would be over, the benefits that would derive from tax breaks to the wealthy, the “spreading of democracy,“ the outing of Valerie Plame, the benefit s of torture that was not torture at all, but merely “enhanced interrogation,”and on and on and on, all lies piled upon further lies upon even further lies. Is it any wonder government no longer has credibility? The case of bin Laden’s death demonstrates just how far our distrust has lead us, as the Obama administration has elected to continue this reign of lies, misinformation, and secrecy. Virtually no one, as far as I can tell, believes what they have been told about bin Laden’s death. And why should they? First he was killed in a firefight, later he was unarmed. He was shot once in the head, then once in the head and chest, then twice in the left eye. He resisted although he was unarmed and not in very good health and was facing our absolutely crack heavily armed troops. He was to be killed, but not if he offered to surrender, he was hiding behind his wife, no another woman, no not hiding at all. His twelve year-old daughter says he was captured and then shot ten minutes later. His burial was rushed to be dropped in the ocean, ostensibly to meet Muslim burial traditions (that do not include burial at sea). Now we are not even allowed to see pictures of his corpse. We are never going to know what truly happened, and our distrust of government will be intensified. It is so bad it is even being acknowledged that people wouldn’t believe it even if they did see pictures of the corpse. Now many are demanding we remove our troops from Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaida pretty much destroyed. There is little sign so far that we are about to withdraw troops from that troubled land, most probably because those are not the real reasons we are there, but no one has ever explained clearly why we are there. I’m pretty sure that by this point, even if the government deigned to tell us the truth about something, no one would believe it. If, however, someone told us we were about to be attacked by “Mole people” from Nowhereistan, and therefore needed to double the Pentagon budget, many would believe it. I once heard it claimed that a man, on a busy payday, successfully cashed a check made out to U.R. Stuck from a bank in Nowhere, Alaska. This pretty much sums up where we are now.

How did this come about? Why and how did we arrive at this point where truth (and beauty) no longer exist? Saint Ronnie had something to do with it, as did Bush/Cheney. But so does the (mysterious, I believe) survival of so many Evangelical Christians (that for the most part do not exist in other modern, industrialized societies). This, in turn, is related to our contempt for education and our anti-intellectualism. And this is related to the corporate takeover of virtually all means of communication, radio, television, newspapers, and what have you, by a very small number of huge corporations that prefer to keep us in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant (so to speak). The powers that be do not want us thinking about how it is they are destroying our planet in their mad desire for short-term profits, or how our wealth is stealthily being transformed from the middle class and the poor to the obscenely wealthy. Is this partly, at least, our own fault? When did you last hear of an uprising or revolution of sheep?

LKBIQ:
Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan

TILT:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.''
-Mark 16:18, the King James Bible

Just Another Day

West Virginia man dressed in bra
and panties, high on bath salts,
kills neighbor’s pygmy goat.

If you thought the only things inevitable were death and taxes you must have forgot Republicans predictable and apparently inevitable attempts to denigrate President Obama. Surprisingly, Obama did receive a standing ovation at a bipartisan meeting of politicians, and perhaps equally surprising he received praises from John McCain. But others went out of their way to either ignore or denigrate Obama’s triumph over Osama bin Laden. The strident fishwife from Alaska, Sarah Palin, who fancies herself Presidential material, with her usual lack of even rudimentary noblesse oblige, actually thanked George W. Bush for bin Laden’s death. Governor Pawlenty did offer some minor thanks to Obama, but only after thanking Bush first. Romney gave credit to “the President” but did not actually mention him by name. Huckabee managed to avoid having to mention Obama by “welcoming bin Laden to hell,” that, I guess, his religion probably believes is an actual place reserved for sinners (and probably, I suppose, Muslims). There are others who shamelessly thanked Bush in one way or another even though he is on record of saying he was no longer even interested in Osama bin Laden. So much for history or reality.

Among the more extreme Obama haters there are other themes. Andrew Breitbart seems to think bin Laden was not really killed, someone named Alex Jones I guess has a blog where he claims bin Laden’s body has been frozen for months, and some other ultra right-winger claims the whole incident was planned as part of Obama’s re-election strategy. Of course it should be clear by now to everyone that some will never accept Obama as President no matter what he does.

Among other Republican actions here and there, in spite of their multi-billion dollar profits in just three months, Pawlenty says it would be “ludicrous to cut oil subsidies.” The Governor of Pennsylvania wants to cut 2 billion from the education budget and suggests the schools can make it up by allowing the oil companies to drill under their schools. The Texas legislature, facing enormous budget shortfalls, are considering a bill that would give tax breaks to those who buy yachts worth more than $250,000. And, of course the Republicans have not given up on their attempt to subvert Roe vs Wade by changing the definition of rape, doing away with unions and Medicare, Social Security, public schools, and unemployment insurance. Dick the Slimy is still trying to claim that torture worked, contrary to the evidence and reports by the experts. Quite frankly, I do not understand how Republicans get anyone to vote for them, except, of course, the basic hard-core loonies that seem to be about their only remaining base. Perhaps Obama’s wonderful success in finding and killing Osama bin Laden will make a difference, if they don’t roviate him successfully in the next few months as they did John Kerry. Put nothing past these contemporary Republicans as they have demonstrated in the past twenty years they will literally stop at nothing to get their way, democracy, nation, and truth be damned.

Unhappily, questions about what really happened when Osama bin Laden was killed seem to multiply daily. First he is standing (hiding, depending on who you read) behind his wife, then it is not his wife but another woman, he is unarmed but resists so he gets shot. This seems to me a somewhat questionable assertion as I’m not sure what significant resistance an unarmed man standing behind a woman can put up. One reporter said the command was to kill bin Laden, another says capturing him was a possibility, if he did not resist. If he did not raise his arms and lie down on the ground was he resisting? Apparently his wife was shot in the leg and another woman, so far unidentified, was killed. While the killing of bin Laden is welcome news, the reporting of it has been atrocious. I don’t know how much of this is the fault of the White House and how much the fault of the news media, but surely it could have been reported in a much more detailed and straightforward manner (perhaps not, given the dismal state of our news media). It is not clear whether they will release any photos of the corpse but even if they do, don’t bet it will put all the questions at rest.

LKBIQ:
A suspicious mind always looks on the black side of things.
Publilius Syrus

TILT:
There is still a risk of catastrophic disaster at Fukushima nuclear plant.

So Why Think?

Naturally I am elated over the killing of Osama bin Laden, especially after all these years. And like most everyone else I have been following the story on the news channels. So, even though I am highly pleased, I am also completely mystified. I had, as you probably remember, pretty much given up hope that George W. Bush would ever find bin Laden. Indeed, I suspected that he might even not want to find him, as he had been at one time apparently a CIA “asset” and perhaps still was. Now that he has been killed I guess my naïve conspiracy theory was wrong. Nonetheless, I still wonder about things. For example, I first heard on the news that there was a firefight in which bin Laden was a participant and got shot. I heard he was shot in the head. Later I heard he was shot in the eye. Still later I heard he was shot in the left eye and also in the chest. Then I heard he was shot twice in the left eye, while he was on the third floor of his compound, and he did not reach for a weapon. I am sure I did not imagine this, it is what I definitely heard on the news. Now if he was a participant in an actual firefight and got shot that is one thing, but if that is not what happened it is quite another thing. If he was not in a fight how did he get shot in the eye, or twice in the same eye? Is this even true?

This raises the question of why he was shot and killed rather than captured, if he was not actively engaged in the fighting, and if he did not reach for a weapon. Surely he must have been a repository for all kinds of important information about al Qaida, information that could be put to good use in our continuing “war” against them, which everyone acknowledges is not going to end with his death. At first I heard the order was to kill him outright, then later I heard there was an option and he could have been merely captured. So what was it? One story has it he was preferred killed because capturing him and bringing him to trial, and all that, would have lingered on for years and years, and so on, and thus would have been highly undesirable. This is, of course, a reasonable explanation. But another explanation could be (if you think about it) that he possessed information that the powers that be did not want revealed (I’m not really a conspiracy buff but I can’t somehow not at least entertain this as a possibility). If he had been a CIA asset at one time (during the Russian/Afghanistan war) he would have at least have had information about that period of time, the U.S. involvement, and so on. And if he continued to be valuable to the U.S. for some reason (even perhaps just as an excuse for the “war”) he would also have no doubt had other valuable information (it does seem to me that Bush, in eight years, could have located him had he truly desired to do so, it only took Obama a bit over two years).

There is also the question raised by his burial at sea. First of all, where he was killed is a long way from the water. They must have thrown his body quickly on a plane and headed straight for the ocean, so what was the rush? One explanation given is that according to Muslim belief a body has to be buried within 24 hours, and they did not want to offend Muslims. While their desire to not offend might be admirable, burying people at sea is not a Muslim practice, except perhaps in very rare circumstances where a Muslim dies when far out at sea and there is no other possibility (as I understand it Muslims are supposed to be buried in the ground with their heads facing east). Perhaps in our eagerness not to offend we just made a honest mistake. Another explanation has to do with their desire to make sure bin Laden would not have a recognized grave site or a shrine that could inspire people to visit there and celebrate his martyrdom. This makes more sense to me but, then, the question arises that perhaps there was something about his death or his body they did not want exposed (like, what if, for the sake of the argument, he had been shot once in the back of the head instead of once or twice in the eye). I am not trying to create a conspiracy on purpose, these are simply questions that arise because I think, so perhaps it is better not to think.

Finally, for the moment at least, there are questions about his residence. I have maintained all along that I did not believe he was living in a cave (at least I had that much right). The huge million dollar compound he was living in was apparently constructed five years ago, was eight times larger than any other in the neighborhood, and was only about a mile from the Pakistan equivalent of West Point (and apparently only about two miles from a golf course). It was also in one of the most desirable and upscale places in Pakistan to live, with many retired Pakistani Generals and other officers retired there. There is no way that local people could not have been aware of this, and no reason I can imagine why they would not have been curious about it. Indeed, this happened on Bush’s watch, at least two years prior to Obama’s Presidency, so where was the CIA then? Thus it is virtually certain that at least some people in Pakistan knew Osama bin Laden was living there but did not tell us about it. Now they claim they were in on the raid, but apparently were not, so if not, why not? This cannot bode well for U.S./Pakistani relations in the future.

I believe the basic story. The CIA somehow identified an important trusted courier and through following him located the compound where Bin Laden was living. By carefully researching the place they determined that it was, indeed, bin Laden who was living there. When President Obama was satisfied our intelligence was probably correct he rightly ordered an attack by the crack Navy Seals who performed with virtual perfection and successfully killed bin Laden, who was absolutely identified by his youngest wife and through DNA. What I find harder to believe is why was his whereabouts not discovered sooner, did he participate in the firefight or not, how many times was he shot, and where, why was he so quickly and strangely dumped into the sea (if he was), and why was he killed rather than captured if, indeed, that was a possibility. It is also the case that the Navy Seals will presumably never be identified, we will probably never know who it was that actually killed bin Laden, and if any photos are released they will probably be carefully selected. In short, we will almost certainly never know what really happened, so why bother to think about it at all? It seems increasingly obvious that the powers that be do not want us to think, even if we had the facts to work with.

On the Matter of Short Stories

I happen to love short stories, even though it appears to be the case they have pretty much fallen out of favor. Starting early with Guy DeMaupassant, Anton Chekhov, Balzac, then through Edgar Allen Poe, Washington Irving, and O. Henry, and up through F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Somerset Maugham, and more recently J.D. Salinger, John Irving, John Cheever, and others, the short story has enjoyed great popularity and success, and also fallen on relatively hard times, as at the present moment.

Throughout all of my adult life I have occasionally written short stories although I am not certain just why. Many of my stories have appeared on this blog, especially during the first few years of its existence. Very few people have read them. I do not know whether this is because people are not very interested in short stories, whether whatever they request of Google does not direct them to the short stories as it does to essays, or whether people just don’t like my short stories in particular. With a couple of minor exceptions, none of my stories have been published. The fact is, because of the incredible difficulty in getting short stories by an unknown author published (other than here), I have made no serious attempt to have them published, although I would like to, and I believe at least some of them are eminently publishable. Some of my stories are at least partly autobiographical, some of them not at all. Here, for the sake of discussion, is a recent one.


Imaginary Love

“Well, I can certainly understand the confusion, and how you must have all felt.”

It was nearly three a.m. Jennifer had decided to tell me about the death of her father. Early morning conversations often take a turn like that, revealing personal or sensitive things more often kept secret. We had a brief but interesting history, Jennifer and I. Our initial romance had lasted long enough to prove we loved each other, but as we each valued our independence as well, we had agreed not to potentially mess it up with marriage. Because neither of us had yet met Mr. or Ms. Right, we still often spent our lonely nights together. At the moment we were sprawled on the huge, lush, white Moroccan rug that dominated the large living room of her condominium, defining the parameters of the major comfort zone.

“Those were his exact words,” Jennifer repeated, “Ida…Ida…, and he reached out as if expecting someone. This was on his death bed! We were stunned and completely bewildered. Why would a ninety year-old man say the name of a woman none of us had ever heard of? It made no sense. Christopher was very upset, even angry. ‘Who in the hell is Ida,’ he demanded. Neither Jonathan nor I had any idea. Mother’s name was Mary, as you know. Jonathan said ‘Maybe he was dreaming, or hallucinating.’ Christopher said, ‘How could he do such a thing to mother? They were married for more than sixty years. It’s just awful.’ I was as bewildered as they were. I didn’t know what to say. We just sat there confused.”

“Yeah,” I offered. “That really is strange. Did you ever figure out why, what it was all about?”

Oh, we found out soon enough, but that’s where it really gets weird. You know when someone dies you have to settle their affairs, get rid of things, clean everything up, stuff like that. You remember, my father was a lawyer. He had a large study at home where he often worked. They had lived in the house for over fifty years, so you can just imagine how much stuff there was to sort through. None of us wanted the house. We decided to sell it and split the proceeds. But while cleaning out his study we learned it was apparently also a kind of shrine...to Ida Lupino, of all people! You know, the actress. There was a framed, autographed photo of her on the bookcase. In some drawers there were dozens more photos of her. There were playbills, posters, newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and other assorted memorabilia. It was unbelievable. We were horribly surprised and had no idea what to think. Father had never mentioned this to any of us. My mother, of course, must have at least been aware of the photograph, but she had never said anything about it either. It was so totally unexpected we had no idea what to make of it all. What would you have thought?”

“I don’t know. It looks like he must have been a real fan of hers. Perhaps he kept it a secret because he thought it was unseemly for a grown man to be such a movie fan. I mean, usually avid fans are younger people or even bored housewives or something. Was there any evidence he belonged to a fan club or anything?”

“No, nothing like that, we were forced to the same conclusion. He must have just been a real fan of hers and wanted to keep it a secret. It was not like him, but we couldn’t think of anything else.” Jennifer fell silent, staring into the embers of the dying fire. I turned to face the fireplace as well, resting my head on one of the gigantic overstuffed pillows we had once carried home from Macy’s one winter night, too impatient to wait for delivery. I looked across her slim body at the floor to ceiling window. Snowflakes had begun to fall. In the momentary quiet I could hear the wind blowing in from across the lake.

“We assumed that was all there was to it,” Jennifer began again, “But then we found the letters.”

“Letters? What letters?”

“Yes, letters. There were dozens of them. I found them in the back of one of his filing cabinets. They were tied in bundles year by year. They were all in father’s handwriting and all addressed to ‘Ida Lupino, Hollywood, California.’ But here’s where it gets even stranger. They were all original letters, not copies, and they had obviously never been mailed. At this point I guess my brothers had had enough, for the time being at least, as they had virtually no interest in the letters. Of course they could have just been business letters or something like that, they didn’t know. I was the one who opened and read some of them. They were love letters! Incredible love letters. The first one was dated in 1939, only a year after my parents were married. Lupino had just appeared in her first important role, in a movie called ‘The Light That Failed,’ with Ronald Coleman. I guess she was supposed to be a prostitute or something, I don’t know, but father said he had fallen in love with her and praised her performance. He raved about her beauty, the shape of her face, her eyes, it was almost sickening. The following year she appeared in High Sierra with Humphrey Bogart. He wrote again, telling her she was brilliant, a wonderful actress. He wrote to her after all of her movies. He seemed to be particularly obsessed with her face which he often repeated was so heart-shaped and lovely. He thought she should have won an academy award for her performance in ‘They Drive by Night,’ and he raved about a scene in ‘Road House” where she fashioned a bikini from a couple of scarves.’ I thought it was disgusting. I stopped reading the letters, except enough to know they continued throughout her entire career. The last one was in 1995, the day she died. He was quite upset. I guess he was truly in love with her, even though as far as we knew, he never saw her in person and apparently never heard from her either. Another thing I thought was strange, he never mentioned any of her husbands, ever. She was married three times but he never mentioned that. It was all just crazy. Do you think he was crazy?”

The suddenness of the question surprised me. I paused in the still flickering light of the fire and searched for an answer to what I thought was probably an unanswerable question. Jennifer’s expression, her face lovelier than ever in the firelight, expected an answer. Helplessly I began. “Jeez, darling, I have no idea. I don’t know much about such things. I mean, I’ve heard of people having imaginary friends, you know, like Jimmy Stewart’s Harvey, and stuff like that, but I don’t know about something like this. Children sometimes have imaginary playmates but I think that must be very rare for adults. Then of course there are sometimes stalkers, individuals who become so obsessed with some actor or actress they follow them, break into their homes, force them to get restraining orders and police protection. But I don’t know about someone who just seems to idolize someone from afar, writes letters, but otherwise has no connection to them. I never heard of such a thing before. I don’t know if your father was crazy or not, but at least no one seems to have been hurt by his imaginary love affair.”

I was surprised to see that Jennifer was silently crying. Huge tears rolled down her cheeks, falling soundlessly on the thick rug. I had no idea what to do, or what to say. I waited. Finally she spoke, “Oh, yes, someone was hurt,” she began. “My mother was terribly hurt. Her life was ruined. We didn’t know. On the surface she and father seemed to be a normal couple, we had no clue she was so unhappy. Now I know it was all just a show, she pretended because she had the three of us to take care of and she had no other options. She finished High School, immediately married, had three children quickly, what else could she have done? But she was secretly miserable. She knew father didn’t really love her. She knew about Ida Lupino. It was all just a horrible farce. I feel terrible about it. I wish I had never seen the letters or learned about it. My mother lived a lie most of her life, for us, can you understand how awful that must have been?”

“How do you know she was miserable? Did she ever confide in you, tell you how she felt?”

“ How do I know? I found her diaries, all of them. My mother wasn’t stupid. She kept house, cleaned and tidied, and did what wives and mothers were supposed to do, but she wasn’t stupid. She found the letters, read them, knew all about it. He even called her Ida a couple of times at very inappropriate moments. It’s all there in her diaries, all of it, the whole horrible story. I don’t know if she ever confronted him about it or not, probably not. She just kept it to herself and was miserable. Oh, God, it’s so awful! It was…it was…just an imaginary affair…but it completely ruined her life. I don’t understand how he could have done such a terrible thing.

The tears began again, Jennifer sobbed quietly. I feared she might never stop. There was nothing I could do, nothing I could say, nothing that would make up for what had happened or make it all go away. I did the only thing I could. I held her sobbing form in my arms until the last glow of the embers finally died. We fell asleep.

I do not consider this one of my better attempts, nor do I have any delusions about my place in American literature. I cannot explain why I decided to write this story, other than the fact that I always feel better when I am writing. This story has little to do with me, except that I did think Ida Lupino was a much better actress than was acknowledged. I was in no meaningful sense a “fan,” nor did I ever write her letters or collect her memorabilia. I once owned a large white Moroccan rug that occupied an important place in my apartment, and I have upon occasion been involved in very early morning conversations. I have also often felt helpless in the face of someone else’s troubles. But that’s it. It’s merely a story, nothing more.

I find that I write stories because I enjoy it, and they are just that, stories, not a showcase for my superior prose style, or to shock the reader with a bizarre theme or the use of four letter words. I am a great fan of W. Somerset Maugham who, I believe, similarly concentrated mainly on telling stories, even though he did command what I think was much more than merely adequate prose. I would have liked to have known him, and I would also be pleased to see the genre once more in fashion.

On Human Sacrifice

Human sacrifice was not uncommon historically. There are mentions of it in the Old Testament, recent archaeological research indicates it was quite likely practiced by the Druids, and it is known to have been quite common in Mesoamerica, having been practiced in one form or another by the Inca, Maya, and especially the Aztecs. Usually it involves the sacrifice of one or more victims to a deity, believing that blood was a form of nourishment for the god, sometimes the sun. From the movies or your reading you probably are aware of the procedure supposedly used by the Aztecs. Slaves or other captives would be ritually sacrificed atop a pyramid, the victims being held down by priests, while one would plunge an obsidian danger into the chest, remove the still beating heart, offer it to the deity, and the body would be rolled down the stairs to the crowd below where it might be eaten or decapitated and skinned, depending upon what account you read. Also, depending upon your definition, different procedures might all be considered human sacrifice, the burial of servants with their master, for example, or suttee as practiced in India when a wife would sacrifice herself on her deceased husband’s funeral pyre.

There is no doubt that such sacrifices were offered although there is little agreement about how often or how many victims were sacrificed either at one time or over time. Michael Harner has suggested the Aztecs might have sacrificed 250,000 victims a year, an estimate I believe to be grossly exaggerated. It is known that both women and children could be victims as well as men, and there is archaeological evidence for this. Also unknown is why such practices existed. Some have suggested there was a protein shortage and cannibalism was a motive. Others have suggested it may have been a form of population control. In any case you must be careful to separate motive from function. That is, the function (or result, if you will) of the sacrifices might have been cannibalism or population control, but that does not seem to have been the motive. The motive was probably the offering of the sacrifice to a deity of some kind. It is entirely possible that people are unaware that their ostensible motives were divorced from the functions of their acts. The most important function of rain dances or other ritual performances may well have been to promote and cement the social solidarity of the group, for example, even though that was not the motive for the performance.

How far-fetched is it to suggest that we here in the United States have a form of human sacrifice? What we do may not be very closely identical to human sacrifice as it is “classically” understood or described, but its function may well be similar. While the Aztecs offered their sacrifices to the god Huitzilopochtli, or other gods they believed in, we are motivated to offer our sacrifices to our great god, “Profit.” Unlike the Aztecs we do not literally or physically remove the victim’s beating heart, we do it symbolically by slowly breaking it over time, as the victim becomes aware of his victimhood and suffers more slowly and painfully as his wife and children observe his increasing helplessness and mortification. He loses his job, exhausts his savings, eventually loses his home, and instead of rolling down the stairway, he rolls inevitably into the gutter as his unemployment benefits run out and he has nowhere to turn for further help. This pleases our Supreme Being, “Capitalism,” because he/she/it benefits from the victim’s misfortune, and also gets rid of a surplus population that might otherwise require some form of welfare. It also pretty much guarantees that his children will be relatively uneducated and able to perform only menial tasks for minimum wages, and his surviving wife will also become a menial or worse. Who says things are not “functionally related?”

What used to be the “American Dream” has now slowly morphed into the American Nightmare. Unemployment is rife, foreclosures are commonplace, wages have been stagnant for years. The rich get even more rich and the poor get even more poor. This poses a great problem for Capitalism, or would if corporations were truly persons, because with modern technology and cheap labor overseas no one needs the poor, or even the middle class. But capitalism is heartless, doesn’t care about the poor or the handicapped, even the nation, the environment, or the planet, as it seeks only short-term profits, the more the merrier. And controlling most of the wealth it can buy whatever it wants, and does.

“Hungry and out of work, eat a Republican.”

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, the wedding. I heard it was “awesome,” “groovy,” and “super.” No doubt the poor and the elderly took time out from their dumpster diving and feasts of cat food and basked happily in the glory of it all. You have to hand it to those “Brits,” they know how (and when) to put on a show.

So THAT'S the Problem

I’ve been wondering for some time why President Obama hasn’t succeeded in solving all of our many serious problems. I mean, we haven’t withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq and are now bogged down in Libya, unemployment is still a terrible problem, the national debt is an absolute disgrace, Guantanamo is still going, DADT is still in operation, there is still no well-defined energy problem, global warming is still real, and the Israel/Palestinian problem still festers on and on. Now, thanks to a legislator in Oklahoma named Sally Kern, I finally understand why so little has happened… Black people just don’t work hard enough like White people. I bet if George W. Bush, or Saint Ronnie were (still) President all of these problems would have been solved long ago. Ms. Kern also gave me a clue as to why we have never had a woman President, as women, too, just don’t work hard enough.

What I find of the most interest about this is not the sheer idiocy of Ms. Kern but the flat-out, in-your-face racism that was expressed. It has become increasingly apparent that the racism that infests the Republicans that up until recently has at least somewhat been kept under wraps, is now out in the open. Part of this is because of Donald Trump’s ridiculously unfounded claims about President Obama. The fact that Obama felt it necessary to produce his long-form birth certificate at all is truly a national disgrace and would not have happened had he been White. His citizenship was never truly in question, the short form was perfectly legal and reasonable proof, and the entire episode was absurd and should never have achieved the attention it received, and, again, would not have happened had he been White. Now Trump has shifted his attention to Obama’s academic performance, demanding to see his grades and how it was he managed to get into Columbia and Harvard. There is no reason for this other than the fact that Obama is Black, it is racism pure and simple. The one thing the Republicans have not as yet come right out with is the claim that Obama is a bad President because he is just not smart enough (he’s Black, you know). While they have not yet been aggressive enough to say this, it is floating around right now in the hints that Blacks don’t work hard enough, probably are not truly academic achievers, Obama didn’t really deserve to be admitted to Harvard, and so on. But so far not even Trump with his unsurpassed vulgarity has had the temerity to say it, at least not in so many words.

Don’t forget the intellectual capacity of Blacks has been denied routinely throughout our history. For a very long time they were considered clearly inferior to Whites in every way, especially intellectually. Even in recent years arguments have continued over their lower IQ scores, poorer school performances, and so on, with some believing these differences are innate and others arguing they are merely the result of cultural conditions and discrimination. For years, not very long ago, it was believed by many, if not most, that Blacks could not be Quarterbacks because they lacked the intelligence, then they could not become coaches for the same reason, and of course management was virtually out of the question. These terrible prejudices have slowly begun to disappear, but have still not entirely disappeared. There is no doubt that racism is alive and well in the United States. Thus it should not be surprising in the least that many people in the U.S. would be both unhappy and threatened with having a (unthinkable until Obama) Black President. Given the fact we slowly added Black Mayors, Black Congresspersons, (a rare) Black Senator, as well as a couple of Black Supreme Court Justices it was perhaps inevitable that eventually there would be a Black President. Personally, I thought it was one of the greatest moments in our history when Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, but I also said it would destroy a long-standing paradigm and would bring about a great deal of resistance. It seems the pride some of us felt in what we had accomplished, along perhaps with the novelty of having a Black President, and also along with the realization that he is not really any different from a White President, has brought about this current reaction and tended to renew questions of ethnic competence. In any case, it is clear now that President Obama is not being judged solely on the basis of his performance or his character, but also on the color of his skin. Just as women have to work twice as hard as men to achieve half as much, so it is that a Black President has to accomplish so much more than our usual White Presidents to receive the same amount of credit. You, like me, might not approve of everything Obama has done, but compare what he has accomplished in two and a half years in office with what George W. Bush accomplished in eight years and then tell me he doesn’t work hard enough. Donald Trump, and those who put him up to this disgusting attack, should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on rails for picking open this scab that should have been left to continue to heal. The Sally Kerns who blurt out their innermost feelings and then try to apologize should be shown the door and escorted into the dustbin of history as soon as possible. Someone today asked, “Where do Republicans even find these people?” Where, indeed?

Nice Try, Mr. POTUS

“But the brilliance, the versatility of madness is akin to the resourcefulness of water seeping through, over and around a dike.” F. Scott Fitzgerald.

President Obama has now released the long form of his birth certificate in an attempt to quell the obsessive concern over his birth that has been distracting us from far more important business. It’s a nice try, but unfortunately, as Fitzgerald suggests, madness is resourceful when it comes to dealing with facts and information it does not wish to acknowledge; releasing the long form will most probably just open up new horizons for the insanity that has plagued Obama from the very beginning. It has already begun with some criticizing Obama himself for the controversy because he did not offer the long form earlier. Never mind there was no reason for him to do so, as what was released was the perfectly legal proof of his birth and citizenship and should have been all that was required.

The crazies that want to insist Obama is not really who he says he is will persist. They will no doubt ask how we know this version of his birth is truly the correct one, it could, after all, just be a clever forgery. As President Obama is the most powerful person in the world he could easily have arranged to have such a document created. And note that his name is the same as his father’s, and his father’s place of birth is listed as Kenya, so how do we know for certain which Obama was really born in Kenya? I have little doubt they will come up with other more creative, ridiculous, and conspiratorial objections.( I started writing this when I first heard the news about his releasing his long form birth certificate, before I saw Orly Tait on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and also before I saw the Rachel Maddow show this afternoon. It is proving to be even worse than I expected. It seems there are at least three distinct groups that are benefitting from this absurd controversy: (1) the truly insane like Orly Tait and some of the other hardcore “birthers,” (2) members of the more traditional Republican Party that benefit from anything that belittles Obama and helps them in their quest to bring him down, and (3) those who stand to benefit materially from the further promotion of this nonsense. Rachel Maddow made this latest point quite clear, pointing out the books being promoted along with all sorts of merchandise having to do with this nefarious business, that would fail to make money if the matter was allowed to rest in peace). This tends to confirm my belief that the Republican party is little more than a criminal conspiracy. Even Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, if you think about it, is just a glorified protection racket, “either play ball with us or we’ll ruin your career.”

President Obama seems unable to overcome what I think is a serious flaw in his personality or basic make-up, he cannot seem to grasp that he is not dealing with people who are all sane and reasonable like himself. Just as he keeps insisting on trying to compromise with his implacable enemies that have announced they have no intention of compromising with him and, indeed, want nothing less than his failure and single-term Presidency, so he now seems to think the loonies and others that question his birth will simply accept his long form (that contains very little information we did not already know). Similarly, if I remember correctly, he has also said in the past he does not think racism has much of anything to do with his critics, or at least has indicated he does not want to acknowledge that as a possible explanation. Here again I believe he is wrong. There are some who simply will not, apparently even cannot, acknowledge that we have, in fact, a Black President. This is not unrelated to the birther controversy, as well as to still more fantastic beliefs about his being a secret Muslim planted here to bring us Shari’a law, or perhaps even someone from outer space. He is clearly, to these people, some kind of “Other,” not really like “us.” One of these people not long ago even went so far as to deny that Obama was really the President, suggesting that it was really the Congress that was in charge. While it was comforting to know that many American citizens were prepared to elect a Black President, it is not at all comforting to realize that even now there are almost as many who were not so prepared (and probably will never be). We can only hope that the younger generations now coming more and more into their own will not cling to racism as tenaciously as their elders did. The blatant racism involved has now been exposed for what it is. Donald Trump, one of the few people, perhaps the only one to successfully expose himself as a racist, scumbag, phony, sleazeball, all rolled into one body, boasting about how he alone has been successful in making Obama reveal his long form birth certificate, has now brought up the question of Obama’s academic record, suggesting not at all slyly that Obama did not deserve being admitted to Columbia and Harvard and was, “he heard,” that Obama was a terrible student (with, as usual no basis in fact whatsoever). The racial element in this accusation is obvious, as is Trump’s demand that Obama produce “his papers (records).” I think it is not surprising that Trump is leading the field for the Republican nomination to be the party’s candidate.

I trust the masses of the poor and unemployed in Britain and around the world will enjoy the marvelous spectacular medieval pageant we are about to witness on our televisions, a royal wedding the likes of which has not been seen for quite a long time. Pomp and ceremony, multi-millions spent on security, diamonds and jewels rarely seen, and souvenirs, no doubt lots of souvenirs the peasants can treasure in their hovels and remember how wonderful it all was. On Friday we can all forget about the rather precarious situation the world is in and just enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. It is nice to know that Prince What’s-his-name and his commoner wife-to-be are basically just normal people like us, they drive their own cars, are nervous about their upcoming nuptials, even to the point of having nightmares about them. Of course the details of the bride’s gown, the guest list, the seating arrangements, the menu, and so on will be much appreciated. I understand that President Obama and his charming wife have not been invited and some Bahrainian billionaire has turned down an invitation, but what do I know about Royal protocol when it comes to the wedding of the century? I intend to celebrate this momentous event on Friday by unplugging all the TV’s in the house and spending the day planting potatoes, weather permitting. I rather doubt the bride and groom will treasure my best wishes, or even want or need them. I don’t know who first penned, “Stop the world, I want to get off,” but they certainly had the right idea.

Groveling for Grover

You probably know who Grover Norquist is, but if not, he is the head of an organization called Americans for Tax Reform, an organization he started (I think) at the request of President Ronald Reagan. Norquist is also a big player in the National Rifle Association as well as a large number of other conservative organizations. He is also the author of the famous quote about wanting to starve government to the point where he could drown it in the bathtub. Although I was aware of his existence I have never until now given him much thought. A comment by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has piqued my interest. Senator Coburn is a member of the so-called Committee of Six (I think that is what it is called). This committee, appointed by President Obama, is charged with coming up with a plan to somehow reduce the deficit. Some have high hopes it will devise a reasonable plan.

How this affects Senator Coburn is because one of the possibilities the committee is facing is raising taxes. Senator Coburn, however, like virtually all Republican Congresspersons, signed a document devised by Grover Norquist, that promises never, ever, under any circumstances to raise taxes. When asked about this Coburn replied to the effect that this pledge was to a special interest group and was therefore not as important as his constitutional duty (that might oblige him to raise taxes at some point). What I find of the most interest here is, why did Coburn wait until now to decide his constitutional duty was more important than the tax pledge that Grover Norquist requires of all Republicans running for office? Why, that is, did Coburn and all the others agree to sign such a pledge in the first place? Obviously they signed it because they did not want Americans for Tax Reform to campaign against them. This pledge is not a legal document, no one has to sign it. This would indicate to me that either they did not consider the potential conflict of interest that might arise or they were so intimidated by Grover Norquist they signed it with no thought at all about what they were doing.

It is not at all clear to me why anyone would ever sign anything specifying they would never under any circumstances do something, anything at all. This would seem to me to be foolishness of the worst kind, how would anyone know what circumstances might demand of them in the future, especially if they were about to enter government? And who is Grover Norquist to demand their signature, other than being head of an anti-tax group? He holds no elected position, is not appointed by anyone with authority to appoint him to do anything of the sort. It would appear to me that Republicans just dutifully signed this absurd pledge without challenging it or giving it proper thought, sheep being led around by the Judas goat. This seems to me to also be the way Republicans act once they are in office, just following the party line whatever it is with no independent thoughts of their own, no regard for what might be right and proper, or good for the nation, just what it is they are told to do for the party. Grover Norquist says jump and they mindlessly do so. The party says jump and they mindlessly do so. I think this is disgraceful and not at all the way our elected officials ought to behave. It also indicates they have no idea what a Congressperson ought to be, so rather than doing the business of the people they merely do the business of those who keep them in office. I guess they believe that if no one pays taxes the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus will take care of the police, firemen, highways, bridges, schools, etc. No one, of course, should have to pay taxes to support our obscene military/industrial/political complex, but that is another matter.

Of course not a whole lot about what goes on in the nation’s capital makes sense anymore. I heard today (although I already knew this) that when the price of gas goes up the President’s poll numbers go down. As it is widely said the President has virtually no control over the price of oil, why should his poll numbers go down? Similarly, the President is being criticized because of his failure to close Guantanamo, but he has been effectively prevented from doing so by Congress, so why should he bear the blame? I do not doubt that President Obama deserves the blame for many things, but these two do not seem entirely fair. But, then, I have long since given up any hope that reason has anything to do with the affairs of government, or even human behavior in general. While I absolutely despise the idea behind the saying, “when you’re going to be raped you might as well lay back and enjoy it,” it somehow does seem appropriate to apply it to our current political situation.