Today at Sandhill

Sandhill. That is what I have decided to call our "estate" (house plus garage and couple of outbuildings) here in North Idaho. A more accurate description would be sand pile. But sand pile just does not have the same connotation of gentility and English upper classness that Sandhill does. You know, like Yasna Polanyi, Sandhurst, Windsor, etc. Of course we have no servants, peons, peasants, slaves or stuff like that. But Sandhill will have to do. So what went on today at Sandhill?

First, my wife, for some reason known only to the supernaturals that deal with females, bought a bar of soap so large that you have to hold it with both hands. Have you ever tried to shower with a bar of soap that has to be held in both hands?Then our dryer gave up the ghost (so to speak). Actually, she just wore it out what with 24 hour usage every day. It cost me forty bucks to be told it didn't work and we would need a new one. Sigh. Then the deer were in the garden (happily they can't do much damage this time of year). Haven't seen our flock of wild turkeys for the past couple of days. Maybe too cold for them. At least they aren't pooping on our deck at the moment.

But moving on to more national problems and developments. A man in Georgia (I think Atlanta) was having trouble getting subway (or bus) tokens out of the token machine. A man standing there offered to help by giving him a token. The recipient of the token, being a decent sort, paid him the $1.75 the token was worth, at which point the good samaritan was arrested (apparently individuals can't sell tokens). Not only was he arrested, he was brought to trial. I do not know what the outcome was. But the prosecutor apparently said, "the law is the law."

In another development, it appears that a father has his two year old daughter here in the U.S. with him and wants to keep her here. This is apparently not against the law in the sense that he has illegal custody or something. The problem is, she was not born in the U.S. and therefore they are going to deport her (even though the father wants to keep her). Apparently they believe she may be a threat to the U.S. Remember, the law is the law. Bureacracy knows no common sense.

Then it was announced that the U.S. mint is going to bring out new one dollar coins with the likenesses of past presidents. Having brought out dollar coins twice before that failed miserably they are going to try again. But like before they are not going to stop printing one dollar bills which insures the new coins, like the others, will fail to be used. Canada, of course, being light years ahead of the U.S. in common sense, stopped printing one dollar bills when they introduced the one dollar coins and voila, they are used successfully in Canada (along with the perfectly sensible two dollar coins). I suspect the U.S. does this on purpose as it has the effect of taking money out of circulation to be saved in piggy banks instead.

Now, on the more important matters. John McCain, as you know, has introduced a bill to ban torture and degrading treatment of prisoners anywhere at anytime. He wants to insure that the military, FBI, CIA, and everyone else has to follow the Army Military Code on such matters. Cheney and the White House are opposed to his bill and have done everything they can to defeat it, including the threat of a completely unprecedented veto. But now they have come up with a easier solution - they have rewritten the Army Manual! Clever, no? McCain is not going to like this. Stay tuned.

The best for last. In his fourth speech on Iraq Bush has announced that he is responsible to declaring "war" on Iraq as a result of bad intelligence. This has produced oohs and aahs all over the place. Wow! Bush has admitted he declared war because of faulty intelligence. To me this represents a confession of war crimes. The Intelligence was not faulty, at least not all of it. They knew, for example, that the Niger yellowcake claim was not true. They also knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear projects. They knew Sadam was not a threat to the U.S. as they had inspectors right there on the ground telling us there were no WMD's. They also knew that after 12 years of constant overflights and sanctions Iraq could not possibly have been a threat. They had virtually the entire world telling them not to go to "war" because it was not necessary. But Bush wanted to prove he was a "War President," and began this totally illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary war anyway. It doesn't even matter whether the intelligence was wrong or not. The pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that was no threat to us was a war crime, plain and simple. The intelligence was indeed "fixed" to bring about the desired result. Bush/Cheney, of course, deny they exaggerated or lied about the intelligence. What else would you expect? The enormity of this criminal activity seems to escape the Republican Party that continues to protect them. Shame!!

Tomorrow the Iraqis vote for the first time for a "democratic" administration. A vote under the supervision of the U.S., an occupying power, with control over the candidates and the election. What do you think will happen if the new Iraq administration asks the U.S. to leave and give up their idea of permanent bases there? It should prove to be most interesting.

Even better! According to Robert Novak (granted a comple jerk), Bush must know who the leaker was. Novak seems pretty certain of this. Now, if Bush does indeed know the identity of the leaker why does he not come forward and say so. Why does he not fire the individual? Why did he lie when he said he didn't know, but wanted to, and would punish whoever it was? My guess is Bush knew from the very first who the leaker was. He claimed he didn't and went on to say he didn't think anyone would ever know, etc. He lied. Big time. Am I the only one who thinks this is really important? Is this miserable excuse for a President never going to be held accountable for anything? Even his consistent, persistent, even pathological lying? Has the U.S. gone completely mad? I fear so.

"meddling"

"Removing Sadam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country." So speaks George W. Bush. And he says if he had to do it again, he would. I fear he believes this. It is possible that taking out Sadam Hussein MIGHT HAVE made the world a better place. But, looking at what has happened in Iraq, what is happening in Iraq, this is more than merely doubtful. Indeed, I believe it is the case that only 44% of Iraqis think they are better off now than under Hussein. A somewhat larger percentage thinks the U.S. should get out of Iraq, the sooner the better. As far as making America a safer country, nothing could be more nonsensical. If anything we are clearly less safe than we were before.

Condi Rice says that Iran keeps "meddling" in Iraq. According to my dictionary, meddling means, "interfere in or busy oneself unduly with others concerns." I guess meddling would not quite cover what the U.S. is doing in Iraq. Let's say violent pathological rape is more like it, a little more serious than meddling. When it comes to the U.S. I don't quite know what to make of meddling. Are we merely meddling in Lebanon? Syria? North Korea? Palestine? Venezuela? Chile? Ukraine? Uzbekistan? etc., etc. Does it not occur to any of the pea-brained neocons that it is really not our business to be constantly interfering in the affairs of everyone else on the globe? Who or what gives us the right to insist on spreading democracy around the world at the point of a gun? Nothing, of course, except for the fact that we think we have the guns to do it. But as Vietnam and Iraq have taught us, it takes more than guns. We will fail in Iraq just as we failed in Vietnam. It is inevitable.

The attempt on the part of the White House to roviate Murtha seems to have collapsed entirely. Indeed, we aren't hearing much about roviating anyone these days. It appears that the American public has now become totally fed up with this indecent, incompetent, criminal administration. It is collapsing in front of our eyes, but not fast enough to suit me.

This Republican administration would collapse much sooner if it were not for the support it is getting from Democrats: those spineless, cowardly, ineffective, timid, useless opposition figures that seem to think they have to outmachismo Republicans in order to prove they are not soft on defense. If Democrats would unite behind Murtha and Dean and actually become a genuine opposition party they would almost certainly be able to take over the Senate, if not the House. If they can't get their act together we should rename them the Pansy Party and start a meaningful third party. The time might finally be ripe.

What a hopeless bunch of both Democrats and Republicans we have managed to field. Time for entirely new teams.

A useless death

Well...in slightly less than three hours from this very moment Stanley "Tookie" Williams will be put to death (unless some truly extraordinary event occurs). I believe this is very wrong. Do I believe this because I think he is not guilty of the murder he has been charged with? No, quite frankly, I believe whether he is guilty or innocent of those murders is basically irrelevant at the moment. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. Do I believe he should get a reprieve because he has tried to turn his life (such as it is) around, written anti-gang books, and such? No, I don't think writing a few books makes him any the less guilty or innocent and should have nothing to do with the issue of life and death. Do I think his life should be spared because he has so many celebrities and others supporting him? No, I think that, too, is irrelevant. Do I think he should be spared because he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize several times? No, remember that even George W. Bush has been nominated. Being nominated, in and of itself, is basically meaningless. I think he should not be put to death because it is, at this point in time, utterly pointless. What conceivable benefit results from his death at this time? He has been on death row for 25 years. He is not going to be pardoned and set free unless, somehow, it might be shown that he was, in fact, innocent (which seems highly unlikely). He cannot harm the broader community in any way and he might, in fact, be able to contribute some some positive input into the problem of gangs and gang violence. The only reason for his execution that I can see is revenge. But if revenge is the only motive why have we waited for 25 years? Twenty five years on death row seems to me clearly harsh and unusual punishment. At this point in time I don't care if the evidence against him was overwhelming or not. No useful purpose is being served by taking his life. There is also the question of whether a so-called civilized society should even have a death penalty in the first place. Note that most other countries abandoned the death penalty long ago and think we are little more than barbarians for continuing it. I don't know Stanley Williams, I don't even know much about him, I have no idea if he was truly guilty or not, but I do know that killing him for the basest of human motives, revenge, is not something to be condoned. I wonder, does the Gropenfueher not want to be accused of favoring another bodybuilder? I see no other reason for this decision.

The present administration is refusing to allow the Red Cross access to some of their prisoners. They claim these prisoners are not subject to the Geneva Convention and do not have any rights. Thus they can be held in secret for presumably as long as they live with no access to a lawyer, no visits from anyone, no way to challenge the authority under which they are being held. Do you believe that any human being anywhere, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, should be able to be held indefinately with no rights at all? I don't. I think anyone who does is simply a monster. We seem not to lack for monsters at the moment.

How long?

How long is the Republican party going to continue to support and defend the war criminals in their midst? The pre-emptive "war" on Iraq was clearly a war crime. Torturing is a war crime. Hiding people from the Red Cross is a war crime. War profiteering is a war crime. Killing civilians is a war crime. Using white phosphorous on individuals is a war crime. Rendition is a war crime. Can anyone deny that the Bush/Cheney administration is not guilty of all of these, and more? It seems to me this is quite clear. It is also quite clear that lying to Congress and the American Public to start a "war" against a sovereign nation that is no threat to you, if not a war crime, is certainly impeachable. So why do Republicans continue to support and defend these criminals? Does that not make them complicit in war crimes? Do they really believe they can escape unscathed from what they have done? Don't they realize this is a cancer that will eventually totally destroy their party if they don't take some action against it? Or is it just me that thinks this? Maybe that's it. I am just out of touch with reality. They didn't really do all of these terrible things. It is all just my imagination.

I guess it is all my imagination that DeLay, Frist, Abramhof, Rove, Libby, et al, are all in trouble one way or another. The "war" in Iraq is really going well. Osama bin Laden is no longer a person of interest, New Orleans is being efficiently rebuilt, the national debt doesn't really matter, global warming is just an urban myth, the price of gasoline is going to return to 35 cents a gallon soon, the Iraqis are going to have a democratic government, we do not torture, and god is still talking with George W. Bush so all is well.

Is it just my imagination, too, that the world comes to a stop on friday and then starts up again on monday? I remember once seeing that a notice appeared one day on the bulletin board of some girl's school that said, "tomorrow is cancelled due to lack of interest." That is what I think goes on now in American culture: "the week-end has been cancelled due to lack of interest."

I also remember seeing graffiti once on the bathroom wall of a very strange bar that read, "help save Peter Rabbit, please help." That is how I feel at the moment.

Still negotiating?

Apparently the White House is still negotiating with McCain over torture. Doesn't this strike anyone but me as utterly ridiculous? How could anyone negotiate torture? I guess what this is all about is trying somehow to protect the already known torturers from being punished? I guess that figures, as no one else in this totally incompetent administration has ever been held accountable for anything. As this torture business leads all the way to the Pentagon and the White House you can bet they are trying to cover their butts.

Isn't it curious that there was no mention of the Nobel Prize for literature whatsoever in the MSM but there has been coverage of the Peace Prize. Think it had anything to do with Pintner's passionate political speech? Naw, that would be too obvious (except that CNN and the other big News Organizations obviously don't care what the public thinks about anything). They obviously prefer we do not think at all. Hence the absolute trivia they try to pass off as news. And, of course, there is little or no news on week ends. Once, when I lived for a time on the Kona coast, I ritually tuned in the morning news. It usually consisted of something like Auntie Sweetie's son ran over another chicken this morning, and stuff like that. But one morning they actually started off by saying, "there is no news this morning." I liked that.

It is 14 degrees Fahrenheit. There is ice and snow. The sky is clear and there are many stars. It is quite beautiful but not very comfortable. This evening I gave my first ever book reading/signing (The Cham Stones). There weren't as many people as I might have wished (I hope because of the cold and a couple of other competing events) but it went well and we sold some books. Actually, it was quite enjoyable and there were some good questions.

I guess I am one of the few people who look forward to monday. It seems to me the world comes back to life on monday. And I hate days when there is no mail. I saw a heading on Buzzflash, "Americans hate Cheney." Amen.

"It is not fit that you sit here any longer!...you shall now give place to better men."
Oliver Cromwell to Parliament, 1654

The Nobel Prize?

Suzie Creamcheese: I never thought about the attack itself as opposed to the target. I think the problem with that, for me, is that the attack is the humanicide. I do not believe "they" are interested in attacking our freedoms. I think they are more interested in their own freedoms. Freedom from U.S. meddling in their affairs, trying to control their countries (read oil), freedom from having U.S. troops on their soil, and such things. Similarly, I don't think it is difficult to understand why they "hate" us. Much has to do, of course with the Israeli/Palestinian problem and the U.S. unconditional support for what is not much more than Israeli theft and genocide. Keep thinking, apparently no one else is.

Harold Pintner won the Nobel Prize for Literature. He apparently gave an impassioned political speech (I was not able to hear it) in which, among other things, he suggested that Bush/Blair should be tried for war crimes (at least Blair as Bush never signed the War Crimes Act (or whatever it is called). I believe he is absolutely correct. My wife, who was on the computer early yesterday morning, told me this story was all over the alternate news sources. This inspired me to force myself to watch CNN for the next two hours. What I suspected would be true proved to be true. There was no mention of Pintner's speech at all, let alone his statement on war crimes. Not only that! There was no mention of the Nobel Prize! What there was, however, was a virtually endless discussion of Mariah Carey and the Grammy awards. When they paused from this for a few moments they told us over and over again about the shooting in Miami. This was truly amusing as they made a point of telling us they didn't yet know much of anything about it. Wouldn't you think they might wait until they did know something about it? Not CNN. Once they get a story, any story, no matter how local and/or petty, they stick with it 24/7. There was nothing about the Nobel Prize or Pintner's speech in our local (and only) major newspaper either. I don't necessarily think this was a deliberate omission. I think they have never heard of the Nobel Prizes or, if they have, they think they must be something for foreigners.

American culture. American values. Is in any wonder we have a mental midget as President, Mr. Evil as Vice-President, and an absolute babbling old fool as Secretary of Defense? My mother used to say, so many years ago now, "there's no fool like an old fool." How appropriate. I won't even mention Condi Rice who has now completely destroyed any credibility the U.S. might have had left (actually none, so I guess she didn't really do that much damage).

Now there is a rumor that Cheney has become such a liability he might be forced out after the New Year, resigning for his health. Don't believe it. He'll never resign and it might be more likely he will get rid of Bush than vice-vera. It is also rumored that Rumsfeld might retire (he denies it) to be replaced by - can you believe it - Joe Lieberman. I guess this proves that intelligent design is alive and well somewhere in the galaxy - certainly not here.

"We do not torture." This reminds me of a scene in For Whom the Bell Tolls, when one of my favorites, Akim Tamiroff, repeats in his drunken state "I do not provoke." It all reminds me of that quintessential American credo, "Get rich, sleep till noon, and screw 'em all." Help!

The Peace Tunnel

Morialekafa is going on a Fool's errand to Seattle and will not be back on the web until friday, the 9th. Sorry.

Suzie Creamcheese: I'm not certain you understand my position. There is (1) killing in self defense (understandable and acceptable), there is (2) killing in warfare (understandable and acceptable but only under condition 1, above. There is killing for personal or monetary gain (understandable but totally unacceptable), there is genocide (understandable but totally unacceptable under any circumstances), and then there is what I call humanicide (not understandable and completely unacceptable under any circumstances). You seem to think that humanicide is understandable if not acceptable because it is motivated by hate and the wish to destabilise. But that is exactly why I think it is more properly defined as humanicide. One could argue, for example, that attacking the White House or the Pentagon, and perhaps by extension even Wall Street, was motivated by revenge. Revenge implies that somehow you were wronged and are now seeking redress. But you cannot argue that the innocents killed in the towers were guilty of wronging the attackers. And as the unfortunates that happened to be in the towers were totally innocent of anything, and constituted nothing but a random collection of human beings (in this case from 70 different countries) this can only be interpreted as an act of humanicide. That is, killing a mass of human beings for no reason other than simply wanting to kill them. That is, in the cases of killing in self defense, warfare, personal or monetary gain, and even genocide, there is an actual target that is in some sense meaningful at least to someone. In the case of humanicide there is no meaningful target other than the willfull destruction of human beings just for the sake of it. I don't know if this makes sense to you. Somehow it does to me. In any case, I appreciate your comments and it does stimulate me for further thought on the subject.

The "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon thinks we should build a 51 mile long "peace" tunnel under the ocean to link Russia to the United States. This can obviously be dismissed as another absurd idea from the man who thinks he is somehow "god." But why, you might ask, is Neil Bush, George's younger brother, apparently on board? I guess they want to award the no bid contract to Halliburton.

A poll in DeLay's home turf indicates that he has only 36% support whereas any generic Democrat has 49%. Don't count your chickens until they hatch. And do not under any circumstances become overconfident. There is always Diebold and rampant illegalities lurking in the background.

Negotiating torture?

In our local newspaper this morning there was an article about the fact that the White House was "negotiating" with McCain over torture. I also saw references to this negotiating on the web. What the hell are they talking about? Negotiating over torture? What form do these negotiations take? McCain sponsored an amendment (or rule, or whatever it was) that there would be no torture. NO TORTURE! None. This passed the Senate 90 to 9. So what is there to negotiate? Is the White House arguing that we ought to be able to torture some people only? Or, perhaps, they are arguing that certain techniques can be used but not others? Maybe torturing is acceptable on tuesday, thursday and saturday but not on other days? I guess they could be negotiating the definition of torture. They could be, I suppose, negotiating over where people could be tortured - like here, or Poland, or Romania, Egypt, or wherever, as long as it is not in the U.S. I have to admit, I do not understand how they could be negotiating torture.

If they are negotiating with McCain, what does that say for him? He wants no torturing. At least that is what he got the Senate to agree to. So why is he now negotiating. I guess it wouldn't have anything to do with how bad he wants to become president? And he obviously wants it bad. How else would you explain photographs of him actually hugging George W. Bush? How about supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design? How about his support for Bush's ridiculous "war?" At the moment it looks to me that McCain desperately wants to be the Republican candidate for president in 2008 and is willing to do anything not to upset the ultra-right Republican base. I can see no other explanation for his behavior in the last year or two. This is certainly not the McCain of the 2000 campaign. McCain, who has always been a warmonger (even worse than Bush) has now revealed himself as a shameless opportunist willing to go to any length to become president. And he may very well succeed as he is about the only Republican candidate that (1) is not in legal or ethical trouble, (2) has cross-over appeal to independent and some democratic voters, (certainly not for me), and (3) is a genuine war hero as opposed to a Cheney/Bush slacker. I believe he would be a disaster as president and would keep us involved in endless war just as Bush/Cheney and the neocons wish (have to continue to support the obscene military/industrial budget no matter what).

The 9/11 attacks on the trade center and the pentagon are the perfect example of humanicide (see morialekafa 8-26-04 on humanicide). Three thousand people died, people from 70 different countries, and including more than 200 Muslims. The attackers had no idea who would be killed, had no reason to target them other than the fact that they existed, had no grudge against them, no excuse for what they did other than to just plain and simply kill large numbers of perfectly innocent people, including children. This was not war, not genocide, not self defense, not for personal or monetary gain, just not rational in any sense of that term. It was humanicide, the deliberate killing of large numbers of random human beings for no reasonable motive. Given what they apparently wanted to achieve it might have made at least some kind of sense to attack the pentagon or Wall street where at least the victims might have had some direct (however remote) connection to the ills they were complaining about. Those who perished in the trade center were truly innocents, especially the children. As I previously suggested, humanicide is a relatively recent phenomenon which I believe probably began during WW II. Unhappily, it seems to be spreading.

Words

"Washington D.C. is so drowned in words and disconnected from reality that it resembles an open-air insane asylum." So wrote Charley Reese on Antiwar.com today.

How can one not agree with that assessment? What are we to think when we hear "our strategy is working," we are going to achieve "total victory," "we do not torture," "we are making progress," "we are fighting them there so as to not fight them here," "we know they have mobile biological labs," "they have reconstituted their nuclear program," "Sadam was having meetings with Osama bin Laden," and other such blatant and obvious lies. These are all just words with no meaning whatsoever, offered to make people think we are about to be imminently attacked, terrorists are here just waiting to strike, Sadam is about to attack us with aircraft, blah, blah, blah. Just words. Empty words.

I would like someone to tell me one true statement that either Bush or Cheney have ever stated. These people seem to think that talking need not have any connection whatsoever with reality. It's just words. Rumsfeld, of course, is the worst. Ask him a question, any question, and he just babbles on mindlessly, his words, if you try to take them seriously, are utterly meaningless. And it goes without saying that anything you hear out of the mouths of Bush/Cheney will merely be words. Words with no meaning attached to them just remain words, and meaning has long since been abandoned by the current administration.

We are never going to "cut and run," at the same time we are trying to develop a strategy to do just that. We will never settle for less than "complete victory," which we know full well is an absolute impossibility. "When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down," even though there is no plan to have anything but a permanent presence in the Middle East as well as permanent bases in Iraq. We are going to "spread democracy" throughout the Middle East. "They hate us because of our freedom." Words, words, words, words, and more words. Like Charley Reese, I no longer even listen to anything that verbally come out of Washington, D.C. Bush/Cheney and the rest of them might as well deliver their (totally lack of message) in pantomime. In fact, whenever Bush or Cheney appear on my television I immediately turn it off as I know it will be nothing more than hollow, meaningless, useless, words. Do not pay any attention to what they say, WATCH WHAT THEY DO. And if you concentrate on what they do you will be so horrified you will demand they be held accountable for their lies and war crimes.

By the Waterfall - short story

It is friday. Then saturday and sunday. According to the MSM there is no real news over the weekend. Oh, there might be local stories like car chases, or burning houses, perhaps even a kidnapping or two, and quite likely something about an execution, but nothing apparently happens anywhere else in the world that might be worthy enough to be offered to the American people. If we're lucky they might tell us something about the "war" in Iraq on monday, especially if they can claim it is going well. If it were not for the internet you might well think the world had come to a three day stop. As nothing much is happening here is another short story.


By The Waterfall (with apologies to Balzac)


In Spring the new cold water from the Sierras falls gracefully from a high worn cliff, runs across a small oak scattered meadow through stands of wildflowers, then plunges twenty feet into a narrow canyon where is formed a cool and attractive spot well hidden from the hot southern California sun. This is a private place under a giant oak and sheltered by huge granite boulders, a place where lovers should have little fear of discovery. It had suddenly become a place of horror.
"I never heard of a mountain lion attacking a full grown woman!" the Sheriff exclaimed, looking down at the mutilated nude body at the base of the waterfall. He peered suspiciously at Nathan, seated nearby with his head in his hands, still in shock.
"Finished with the pictures?" he asked the photographer, then he squatted on the heels of his worn cowboy boots to study the corpse. After a short time he rose, saying softly to himself, "Damned if I ever seen such a thing! Neck broke, tooth marks on her face and head, them long scratches on her body. Can't see what else it coulda been...then, she's not very big...lions have been known to attack children."
"Tell me again what happened," he ordered Nathan.
"Well," Nathan began, "as I told you, we were having a picnic...I went back to the car to get something...the camera. On my way back I heard a scream, a horrible scream. I ran here as fast as I could and that's when I found her, lying there, all bloody. Dead. I looked around but didn't see anything. But I'm sure she was attacked by a mountain lion. Oh god, it's so awful!"
"How do you know it was a mountain lion? Did you see it?"
Nathan paused, started to speak but stopped, then began again. "No, but I'm sure that's what it was. What else could have done it?"
"So, why was she naked? What were you doing here?"
"We just came to picnic. After we ate...I don't know...there's something about the waterfall that made her want to undress. She took off her clothes and went over there. That's when I went for the camera. I don't...I didn't...know her very well. We came to have a picnic. She went over to play in the water and..."
"To play in the water or to play with you?" the Sheriff's sarcasm seemed to Nathan brutal and inappropriate. "Am I supposed to believe that this beautiful girl undressed just to play in the water? You weren't screwing her? Come on, tell the truth."
"I didn't bring her here for that," Nathan blurted. "I told you, I hardly even knew her. But yes, after she took her clothes off we made love...there, on the bank." Nathan pointed to a protected grassy spot on the other side of the stream. "But what are you thinking? That I killed her? Why are you asking me so many questions? What difference does it make why we came here anyway?"
The Sheriff suspected that Nathan had not told him everything. Even so, he replied, "No, I don't think you killed her. There's no way you could have made those marks. But we'll have to get a coroner's report. I never heard of a mountain lion killing a grown woman before." Then, addressing the photographer again, he said gruffly, "Come on, let's wrap it up. Let's go."
The two medical assistants placed the body on a stretcher and struggled over the rough, hot terrain, picking their way carefully along the steep rocky path. When they finally reached the ambulance they placed the stretcher not so gently inside and immediately sat down to catch their breath and gulp greedily at the sheriff's canteen.
"Don't go out of town," instructed the Sheriff, looking directly into Nathan's eyes. "We may need to talk with you again." Then he added, "Sorry, son, I know how you must feel."
Nathan was surprised at the Sheriff's sudden expression of sympathy. He nodded and climbed miserably into his station wagon. "It had to have been the lion," he thought. "It could only have been her."
The coroner's report confirmed the accidental death caused, it concluded, by a wild animal, most probably a mountain lion. It went on to observe that as the dead woman weighed less than one hundred pounds it was possible, however unusual, that the animal had indeed attacked her. As far as the Sheriff was concerned that was the end of it. Not so for Nathan.
---------------
"Nathan, nice to see you after all these years. What can I do for you?" Professor Loftus pulled Nathan gently into his office with his right hand while closing the door with his left.
"Well..." Nathan began slowly, "I felt I had to talk with you. I've had a very strange and terrible experience. I...I just have to talk to someone. You may be the only person in the world who will understand. I'm sure everyone else would think I was crazy."
"Oh, come now, I'm sure it can't be that bad." Professor Loftus thought Nathan looked ill and motioned him to a comfortable chair.
"Well Professor Loftus, I..."
"Please Nathan, you can call me Bob. Now that you've finished your degree and are an up-and-coming assistant professor don't you think we should dispense with the formality?"
"Yes sir, I'll try. But please, I have to tell you what happened. Its been horrible! I have to tell someone and I can't tell anyone but you because no one else would believe it. I was with this girl," Nathan blurted, "up in the mountains. She was killed by a mountain lion. Maybe you read about it? It's been in all the papers."
"Yes, I did see something about it. It must have been terrible for you as well as for that unfortunate girl. But why do you feel you have to tell me about it?"
"Because Professor...uh, Bob...because you're an anthropologist. You were my advisor. You're the only one that can possibly understand. There's much more to it than anyone knows. Than anyone could possibly know or believe. I have to tell someone. You. Otherwise I think I may lose my mind..."
"Well, then, yes, of course, go on." The professor, sensing now a touch of hysteria in Nathan's voice, encouraged him. He removed a bottle of sherry and two glasses from the back of one of the filing cabinets that lined his office.
Nathan leaned back in the deep leather chair and paused for a full minute. Then he began in a quiet voice, "I know this will probably sound stupid, maybe even insane, but what I am about to tell you is true. Every bit. I swear it." Nathan paused again for a moment, then continued nervously. "You remember that when I first came here as a graduate student my main interest was in American Indians. It was only after I met you that I changed my interest to Melanesia. Well...anyway, the second year I was here I decided to go...to go...on a vision quest. You know, go off by myself and fast and all that to see if I could get a vision. A guardian spirit. I realize this sounds pretty stupid but I was a true anthropological romantic in those days. I wanted to see if it would work. It seemed to me that if American Indians had sought visions for generation after generation there must be something to it." Nathan reached for his sherry and, satisfied that Professor Loftus was listening, continued.
"So I went off into the mountains. I went exactly to the place I took Lorraine."
The professor, deducing that Lorraine must have been the girl who was killed, nodded at Nathan to continue.
"I knew of this place up in the mountains," Nathan began again. "Even though it's not very far from L.A. it's like being at the end of the earth. You can go up there for days and not see another person. I drove there and parked on the side of the road. It's a really bad road, just dirt and rocks. Hardly anyone ever goes there, or even knows about it for that matter. I left everything in the car except the shorts I was wearing and went off to find a place to stay. I followed some sort of animal trail, a deer trail I guess, until I came to a small waterfall. There was a nice place there, well hidden and sheltered from the wind. I decided to stay there as long as it would take. I had no food, nothing, not even a knife. I thought that if I stayed there long enough I would get a vision. And then, believe it or not, I did." Nathan began to speak faster.
"Oh, It didn't come right away. I spent five days and nights there before it finally came to me. I slept, or tried to anyway, on a huge flat boulder near the waterfall. I didn't eat anything the whole time except a little bit of that stuff they call miner's lettuce. I chewed on some bark sometimes and I drank water from the stream. During the day I meditated and at night I deliberately tried to dream. The nights were cold. I was hungry and utterly miserable. But I didn't give up. I kept on trying. Then, on the fifth night I had the vision. It was nothing like I had imagined it would be. Nothing at all. It came to me in the form of a beautiful woman. The most beautiful and sensuous creature I've ever seen. I couldn't tell what nationality she was, not even her race. But she was tall and willowy with tawny hair and the most incredible luminescent eyes. Her eyes were like the eyes of an animal when you see them at night." Nathan paused and then continued, speaking more rapidly.
"It happened so fast! All of the sudden she was just there! Right by my side. There was no warning, nothing. She just appeared. She snuggled up against me and I didn't feel cold anymore. She was soft and warm." Nathan paused, looked at the Professor, then shouted, "It's true! Every bit! I swear every word is true!"
"Incredible," the Professor remarked calmly. "But it doesn't sound that unusual. It could have been a dream, or even an hallucination. Hallucinations occur easily under those circumstances."
"Hallucination? A dream? Perhaps. But it was real to me. As real as my being here now. In fact, even more real. But there's more...I don't know how long I actually spent there. It seemed like forever. We wandered in the forest, enjoying the solitude and each other, sleeping close together wherever we found ourselves...and yes, even making love. We never seemed to be hungry or tired. There was a strange, surrealistic quality to it. At times we floated effortlessly over the ground, just above the trees. The trees appeared to glow, especially the black oaks. In the morning when the sun first came up and filtered down through the leaves it was like being in heaven. Or at least what I've always pictured heaven to be like. Not that I ever believed there was such a place. We wandered over the mountains with thoughts only for each other. She was so beautiful. Her name, she told me, was Llona."
Nathan paused once again, staring out of the office window into the twilight. "One of the strangest things about it," he began again thoughtfully, "is that I never felt I was in love with her. I guess that loving her was irrelevant as what I felt was so much more intense. It was as if she was really part of me. She told me she would look after me always and help me whenever I needed her. She said I had only to believe in her and she would always come to me. She taught me what to do to summon her and made me practice over and over again so I would never forget. And she made me swear that I would never forget her."
"But Nathan," the professor interrupted, "it doesn't strike me as unusual that you would have had such a dream, or whatever it was. Out there alone, exhausted and hungry and cold and all. Why do you think it was a vision?"
"Please. Wait. Let me finish." Nathan looked up at the professor who was now seated on his desk looking down at him with obvious concern. "After this happened to me I was terrified. I don't even remember how I got back to my car. I don't remember driving home. A few days later, after I had rested and eaten and recovered somewhat, I began to doubt my sanity. I never told anyone. Not a soul. I was afraid to go back there so I never did...that is, until now. I went there with Lorraine. I never tried to summon Llona. Never! It was much too frightening an experience. I studied for my exams. You helped me get the grant for the work in New Guinea. I was there for almost two years as you know. Then, when I returned to write my dissertation, I couldn't afford to live in L.A., so I went to Berkeley where a friend let me stay with him. It was only after I finished and you helped me get the job here that I returned. I hadn't forgotten the experience. I could never forget it, but it was sufficiently past that I felt no fear of going back. It was, after all, four years later."
"But you surely realized by then that it had to have been just a dream or an hallucination?"
"You keep insisting that's what it was," Nathan protested. "But I tell you it wasn't like that at all! It was real! It's true! I know it, and I'll prove it to you!"
"Nathan, Nathan," Professor Loftus said gently, "how could you ever prove such a thing? You're just upset. Take it easy. Here, have some more sherry." As the professor poured, Nathan began to speak faster.
"You see. Llona wasn't a woman at all! She disappeared! No! No! That's not right. She didn't really disappear. She was replaced. By a lioness! That's why I was so afraid. Don't you see? Don't you see? You know that spirits can take on different shapes. They can appear in whatever guise they wish. One moment it was Llona and the next the lioness. Oh, it was still her all right, the same creature. She was right there next to me where Llona had been. She licked my face and rubbed up against me. She walked back and forth against my legs and then, later, she lay there with her head in my lap. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about this."
Professor Loftus began to think that perhaps Nathan really was insane but, not knowing what to say, simply waited.
"Don’t you see? Don't you understand? Lorraine wasn't killed by accident! No. She was murdered!"
"You mean you think the lion that killed your friend was the same lion?"
"Of course it was. What else could it have been? She was there! I saw her!"
"You actually saw the lion? But no, even if you had seen one how could you have known it was the same one? Besides, why would the lion want to kill your friend? Nathan, I'm sorry, but perhaps you ought to get some help. See a doctor."
"I tell you I saw her! She was there just as sure as you are here!"
"Did you tell the Sheriff?"
"How could I tell the Sheriff? Don't you understand? It was not the lion I saw. It was Llona!"

Insurgents

Donald Rumsfeld, the senile old goat who has pretended to be Secretary of Defense for the last few years, claims to have now had an epiphany. This profound experience suggested to him that we should no longer refer to the Iraqi opposition as insurgents because somehow that gives them more credit than they deserve. He suggests that we now call them (I think I have this right) "enemies of the legitimate government of Iraq" (elgis?). Richard Clark appeared on the Colbert Report this evening and this topic came up. Clark suggested that when the elgis are defeated we will know that we have won the gwat (global war on terror). I guess when this happens we will have won the "complete victory" Bush insists we must have, and this will have been achieved by "staying the course" and thus "spreading democracy" throughout the Middle East, that is apparently the "noble cause" upon which we are embarked, and which will come about because of our "strategy for victory" which in turn is based upon the same meaningless bullshit Bush has been touting from the very beginning.

It seems not to have occurred to anyone in office that Donald Rumsfeld is the saddest excuse for a Secretary of Defense we have probably ever had and should have been replaced years ago. He has never done anything but babble on endlessly about what he doesn't know he thinks we ought to not know, but as we do not know it, we can't go on thinking that somehow we do know it because not knowing it is not quite the same as knowing that we don't know it, and etc., etc. But I'm really pleased he had this epiphany because this has settled the insurgency problem for good. How this totally incompetent, pompous, ridiculous, and completealy dishonest jerk gets away with continuing in office would be a mystery if we didn't know who was President. Well, I guess you just have to go to "war" with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the Secretary of Defense you might want.

The rumor is out now that Barbara Bush, as you know is the President's mother, is very upset that the American people have taken to being very critical of her boy. She attributes this to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others because of course it couldn't be little Georgie's fault. I guess the only one she doesn't fault is Karen whats-her-face who, according to Condi Rice, gives really good sermons. I love it! Stay tuned.

Depends upon what "it" is

Well...the Bubble Boy gave his set Iraqi speech for the umpteenth time to another military audience. He doesn't dare speak to a general audience because someone might actually ask him a question he can't answer. One of those questions, I guess, is what "it" is? That is, in today's speech he apparently said that once we attain "complete victory" it will be "worth it" (I have to confess that I did not actually listen to his speech, I pick up what he apparently said by listening to reviews of what he said. If I were to actually listen to him, and have to watch him, I would almost surely become so overtaken by rage as to have a heart attack). What does he mean by this? What would complete victory entail? Is complete victory even possible against terrorists (of course not). Try to imagine what from his point of view victory in Iraq might mean. I guess it would mean that we would have successfully installed a puppet government that would do our bidding, let us control their oil, and otherwise cooperate completely with our desires in the area. Apparently he would consider this the spreading of democracy to the Middle East. Of course he doesn't care if it's a democracy or not, as long as we control their "government" (and their resources). Thus whoever is elected in Iraq has to be "our" man, otherwise I guess it would not be worth it? There is no doubt the election will be fixed and apparently we have our candidate in mind. If we lose what happens? If we win what happens? What happens in either case is that we will withdraw some troops, retain some troops, keep some troops in other parts of the Middle East, and make sure that things go our way. No one, absolutely no one, is suggesting that we will not maintain a military presence in that part of the world. While I admire Barbara Boxer, when she suggests we proclaim we will not maintain a permanent presence, I don't know if she is being serious or just naive.

How is it that everyone now is speaking about about either getting out of or staying in Iraq but no one ever mentions oil? Indeed, Hillary apparently sent out an email discussing what was wrong and needed to be done in the our country without even mentioning Iraq, let alone oil. Kerry has finally flunked out as a public speaker. Lieberman continues to shill for the President and Republicans, grandpa Rumsfeld got put in his place over torture, Spector made a fool of himself over football, and the Republican idiocy just continues.

Our senior Senator, Craig (who apparently believes we are still going to find WMD's) inserted a rider in some bill that would eliminate money for the Fish Passage Center. He claims they are biased. As it is a small group, with a small budget, and basically does nothing but count the number of salmon in the system, it is somewhat difficult to see where they might be biased (he thinks they don't know how to count right?) Actually it is much simpler than that. He represents the energy industry and they do not like having the fish counted because it might actually prove that something more needs to be done to save the salmon. Senator Craig should stick to telling us about how bad New Orleans is (as he knows even less about that than anything else). Senator Craig is an idiot and an embarrassment to the State of Idaho (but of course most Idahoans think he is wonderful).

What?

Watch 'n Wait: I know of people in Arizona who go out in the desert and shoot machine guns for "therapy." In The High Valley by Kenneth E. Read he describes a New Guinea leader who goes out alone and shoots a single arrow into nowhere, presumably for the same reason. Please let me know what your friend thinks the "purpose" is. If he knows he should share it with the rest of us.

I read one article today in which Bush says that when it comes to exiting Iraq he is going to listen to his generals and no one else. Then there was another article which claims that he refuses to listen to anyone, including his generals, if they say something he doesn't want to hear. Apparently the generals are afraid to say anything he doesn't want to hear as it might well be detrimental to their careers. As becoming a general is a very political thing as well as military this is understandable. This is what makes Murtha's comments so powerful - he has the ear of the generals and is obviously transmitting their beliefs and not simply his own. What they fear to say he can say for them, obviously very threatending to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice,/et al. If I had to choose between Bush's claim that he listens to his generals and the claim that he refuses to listen to anyone who tells him anything he doesn't want to hear, I would certainly opt for the latter.

I would never compare Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was very successful, at least until the bitter end. Bush has consistently, predictably, invariably, overwhelmingly, single-mindedly, incompetently, almost compulsively been not successful. What they do seem to share in common, when the end is near, is the absolute refusal to accept any advice from people with an actual grasp of reality, people who could actually help them, those who want to help but are dismissed out of hand because they have to say what the Fuehrer/King/President doesn't want to hear. It is said that those around the President are terrified because no one can get through to him. He apparently is on a religious mission, knows that he has the absolute truth as well as the blessing of God, and is not going to give up no matter what. If this is true it is terrifying even beyond belief. And if he doesn't come around and drastically change course soon we will know that it is, unhappily, the truth. Also, if this is true, George W. Bush is not fit to be President of the United States.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for all of us unless something happens soon.

A "nefarious bastard?"

Colonel Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff for many years, has said that Cheney must have believed Iraq was a training ground for terrorists or, if not, must have been "a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard." I see no reason why Cheney should not be seen as all three, in addition to being a pathological liar and an all around disgusting human being. Personally, I believe he is the personification of evil.

Now Duke Cunningham, Republican of California, has pleaded guilty to taking bribes in return for corporate favors. Ney will doutless be next in spite of his lawyer's attempt to portray as a poor innocent patsy. And of course we still have DeLay and Frist on the griddle, to say nothing of Karl Rove (actually, there are so many others it is impossible to keep score).

McClellan seems to have disappeared for the past 19 days; someone has suggested into the arms of Gannon/Guckert (anyone remember him?). Odds are he is about to be replaced (if, indeed, they can find anyone foolish enough to take on such a job). Apparently some have suggested to Bush that he should fire Rumsfeld; but Bush, being Bush, refused to do so as it would be seen as an admission of failure which, of course, he could never admit.

Judith Miller seems to have had her 15 minutes of fame. Bob Woodward is being exposed for the obsequious court stenographr he has become, the MSM continues to lose out to the Internet (and deservedly so), it is too late (hopefully) for Bush to bomb al-Jazeera, and we continue to wait for the complete collapse of the Bush/Cheney fiasco. It is far better than any three ring circus but unfortunately, not entertaining.

My father told me: "when you get a big man down, don't let him up." Good advice for the present case.

News?

Watch 'n Wait: Thank you for your comment. I have missed you for quite a while.

I am having more and more trouble with what is passed off as news, or at least what is reported on national television. I guess when a bus overturns in Santa Maria that is indeed news, but national news? I have no doubt it is news for people who live in Santa Maria but why is it worthy of being reported on what is supposed to be national news, like CNN, for example? Surely it is not the only bus crash or other similar accident in the world that day? Similarly, I find it distressing to hear that a building burned down in some other city. I mean, really, buildings burn down all the time all over the country, so why is one particular burning building featured on national news? And why, if there are multiple murders everyday in the U.S., is one singled out for not only reporting but virtually non-stop reporting? The same with the disappearance of a young woman or a child. I am not suggesting such things are unimportant. I'm sure they are of grave importance to the people involved. But how do these individual events get singled out for so much coverage while identical events receive no coverage at all - at least on national news?

The only conclusion I have been able to come to is that the MSM don't really want us to hear any truly important national or world news. If you want to hear what I would call "real news" you have to go either to sources outside the U.S. or the internet. It is perfectly obvious that the British Press, for example, contains much more real news than U.S. news sources do. The same is true of Germany, France, and most other European countries.

Critics of our news media say this is because our news sources have concluded that Americans would rather be entertained than informed. As this is so, corporations that wish to advertise do so on programs that are entertaining rather than informative. While this may be useful to corporations it is surely disastrous for a democracy that supposedly can only function with an informed electorate (which we have long since abandoned). There is also the well known (by now) fact that our MSM are owned by large corporations that are in league with the current administration and therefore act on the administrations behalf. This is a truly dangerous situation that is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Even PBS has been usurped by the current administration. We still have Free Speech TV and Democracy Now but lacking quasi porn and soaps they have a limited audience. There is little doubt that if left unchecked the present administration will go after them as well as the internet. We must resist this at all costs!

There are, I guess, faint rays of hope. I know several people, who like myself no longer watch tv other than Democracy Now. And it is being reported that subscriptions to newspapers are falling off. More people are blogging and getting their news from the internet. At least some programming on MSM has become so awful that fewer people watch every year. But I guess it can never become so awful that no one will watch. Pity.

A noble mission?

I gather that the "noble cause" (which has never been defined) has now changed into the "noble mission." At least this is what Bush said in his weekly radio address. I never listen to this but I saw a reference to it somewhere. Can no one explain to our apparently brain dead president that pre-emptively attacking a sovereign nation that is no threat to us is not a noble cause? It is, in fact, a war crime, plain and simple. Torturing captives is also a war crime, as is hiding them from the Red Cross, war profiteering, the use of chemical weapons, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Lying to Congress and the American people to bring about an immoral and illegal "war" might not be a war crime but certainly is an impeachable offense.

Apparently Bush?Cheney think that regime change to bring about democracy is a noble mission. It, too, is a war crime. And trying to impose democracy at the barrel of a gun, if not a war crime, is certainly a useless and foolish endeavor. As we have never been told what the noble cause or mission really is, we can only speculate on what it might be in the warped brains of the neocons who conspired treasonably to bring it about. Think Israel, oil, control, power, "war president," empire, and not least of all, profit.

In our local rag, sometimes referred to as a newspaper, was a letter this morning that claimed Bush has "moral integrity," something the writers said Clinton did not have. First, whatever Clinton had or did not have has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Bush has moral integrity. And let us consider Bush's moral integrity. As a boy he blew up live frogs for fun. As a young man he participated in at least one abortion. He used family influence to escape duty in Vietnam by getting into the Air National Guard in Texas, and then failed to live up to his obligations there. He failed in every business he attempted to be bailed out time and again by his family's wealthy friends. But he did make a fortune by participating in a scheme to con Texas taxpayers into building an expensive sports stadium which was later sold to produce private profits. He then accepted an illigetimate presidency handed to him by a corrupt Supreme Court and a second term provided by illegal and underhanded means. He then lied to Congress and the American people to start a "war" that was necessary only so he could be a "war president." And he is now lying about all of his previous lies. He has the blood of untold thousands on his hands and refused to acknowledge that he ever made a mistake. So much for moral integrity.

Counting blessings

The wheels (or snails) of justice move far too slowly for me. Is there anyone now (aside from the apparent 33% of the population who would continue to support Bush/Cheney even if they were caught in flagrante delicto with goats on the White House steps) who is unaware that Bush?Cheney and the neocons lied to bring about an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war?" Anyone who doesn't believe they are now lying about their previous lies? A large majority now realizes that the "war" is going nowhere, was wrong, and so on. The Republican party seems to be oblivious to the fact that they are quite likely to implode and perhaps even disappear for many year to come if they don't take some action to cleanse themselves of this cancer that is threatening them. I guess nothing much happens over the Thanksgiving holiday. Perhaps things will pick up next week although we may have to wait until next year before the serious action begins.

Anyway, waiting around for something big to happen, I began to concentrate on my blessings. Living here in this little town does have fantastic advantages. For example, we have friends who raise Scottish Highlands cattle. They are raised naturally with no chemicals whatosever. Indeed, they are fed mostly on the first cutting of alfalfa (augmented with shredded apples and other such treats). Our biggest problem is trying to get the local butchers to cut 2 inch New York steaks. They seem to think anything over an inch is too much. We have other friends who raise a couple of pigs every year or two, one for themselves and one for us. Again, no chemicals, artificial feeds, or whatever. Similarly, we can get junk free lambs. We have a large garden every summer. Organic. We preserve much of our own food. We also have a farmer's market in the summer where we can find additional purely organic vegetables and fruits. We get morel mushrooms from a local picker, as well as huckleberries. We have our own apples, cherries, plums, pears, raspberries and currants. Although we do not hunt, we have friends who provide us with venison as we allow them to hunt on our land. Every summer we buy a supply of wild Alaskan salmon and halibut from a fisherman who flash freezes it and brings it here to be sold. Granted we do not get the variety we were offered in Santa Monica.

We have no earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, volcanic eruptions, or tidal waves. There are no poisonous snakes and although perhaps a poisonous spider in rare instances, not a problem. The winters are generally mild and temperatures in winter rarely go below zero. Some years we have very little snow but on rare years there can be quite a lot. In the summer it can get uncomfortably hot but usually not for more than a week or two. There is little humidity and you can always sleep comfortably at night.

This is not to say there are no problems or drawbacks here. It is two hours to the nearest airport which is a drag if you travel much. As you can't buy much of anything in town you have to drive between 30 and 90 miles to find some of the things you need. The biggest problem for us is the fact that Idaho is probably the most solidly Republican state in the union, so we are surrounded for the most part by very conservative Republicans. There is, however, a small and now very active Democratic party which helps. The local public schools are not very good but as our son is now attending the University of Washington that is a problem for us of the past (and it was a problem). Local politics are more of a nuisance than anything else. Our little community recently erected a 100 foot flagpole and hoisted a flag so oversized as to be embarrassing. I know the flag is symbolic but this one seems to be symbolic of the fact that we are more patriotic than anyone else in the state, and to me, at least, seems to symbolize that we are a community of overactive nincompoops. Oh well, one can't have everything.

Tips of icebergs

Happy Thanksgiving!

Don't forget to buy, read, and enjoy THE CHAM STONES.

Well, as you might suspect, the plot thickens, and thickens, and thickens. In an article posted on Antiwar.com, Christopher Deliso (I do not know who he is but he seems to speak with some authority) outlines some of the people and events linked to the Plame outing. Among other things it is said that the call to Libby that alerted him to Valerie Plame definitely came from the office of John Bolton. The article goes on to name four people, all affiliated with Bolton in some way, who were most probably involved in the Plame affair: David Wurmser, Frederick Fleitz, Mark Grossman, and Eric Edelman. If there is any truth in Deliso's article it proves that the Libby indictment is truly just the tip of an iceberg, not only in terms of who were involved in the scheme to out Plame, but also in the meaning of that outing. It goes far, far beyond merely trying to punish Wilson for challenging the claims of the Bush/Cheney administration. Indeed, it might well lead into things that one would ordinarily think unthinkable.

The other iceberg-sized scandal floating around in Washington has to do with the Abramhof mess. With Scanlon agreeing to cooperate with the investigators this will surely lead eventually to Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, and many others. And again, it may lead to things we would not believe (unless you, like me, are now prepared to believe anything of this scurrilous administration led by the greatest pack of liars ever assembled in our nation's capital).

As you may have already heard, it seems that our far from illustrious self-proclaimed "war president" apparently wanted to bomb al-Jazeera, the main Muslim news/television organization. Tony Blair talked him out of it fearing there might be too much revenge. This comes from a leaked British memo about which there is some controversy. Some claim Bush was joking (yuk yuk) but others say he was serious. As the U.S. already attacked al-Jazeera elsewhere, and an inordinate number of newspersons have apparently died at the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq, I believe Bush could well have been serious. The British government has now taken the position that if any news source prints this memo they will go to jail. Wouldn't want to make Bush look bad would we?

In another attempt to protect our fake Texas president it appears the city of Crawford (maybe the county?) hurriedly passed a new law making it illegal to camp along the roadway (for some distance, maybe 5 miles?). This law is being challenged as an infringement of free speech but it is not clear how far that might go. In the meanwhile some have already been arrrested and Cindy Sheehan hasn't even arrived there yet.

I cannot see how this administration can possibly last for another three years, nor can I see how anyone would want it to. It is just disaster as far as the eye can see.

Gadjets - essay

While we are waiting for the coming disaster, and nothing much is happening that we are hearing about, let us consider gadjets.


I am not a person who is now, or has ever been, "into gadjets." As we increasingly live in a gadjet minded world this makes me more and more "out of it."
For example, when I carve a turkey I want a good sharp knife and a big solid fork to hold it down, no fancy pronged carving board and electric saw that looks like it was made for cutting hedges and buzzes away like a lawnmower. Similarly, when I open a bottle of wine I want a simple old-fashioned corkscrew, one that you have to twist into the cork, not some new fangled gadjet that looks like a hypodermic needle and pumps air into the bottle. Electric can openers don't impress me one bit. Like all such gadjets they are too complicated and tend to break down. Give me one of those old crank openers for the rare occasions that I need one (cans being themselves gadjets that foul the taste and quality of whatever they contain). Fresh fruits and vegetables are "where it's at" as far as I'm concerned.
And what about those super-duper fancy one-piece things that sort of look like pliers but claim to be a single tool for doing everything from cutting your toenails to washing your car? Have you ever seen anyone use one of those things? Of course not. They are made for the "gadjet minded." When you really need a tool you probably pick up a rock or a stick, having left the gadjet you might need at home on the shelf with the rest of the junk.
Battery operated gadjets are the absolute worst. Batteries are always dead just when you need them the most. There is obviously a conspiracy to dump more and more battery driven toys and gadjets on an unsuspecting and gullible public. Who can resist a battery operated teddy bear that beats a drum. Or an electric jeep that turns cartwheels? Or whatever? Horror of horrors! Someone once gave me a battery operated shoeshine brush. Of course you still had to slap the polish on by hand - but after that, wow, you just turned on the machine and a little round brush went round and round and your shoes were "automatically" polished. That is, that's what was supposed to happen. What really happened, of course, was that the batteries ran down and/or the switch didn't work and/or the kids had left the damn thing out in the yard, or some such.
Of course all these gadjets are trivial compared to the more recent gadjet conspiracy, the gadjet to virtually replace all gadjets, the home computer. Now we are all being told that everyone needs a computer -- the elementary school child, the secondary school child, the college student, the professional and businessmen, and even the man or woman of the house. I'm sure the true gadjeteers think they have died and gone to heaven. But what, pray tell, does one need with a computer to keep track of the mundane and relatively simple everyday tasks of home life. Do you really need a computer to do grocery lists or keep track of the last time the lawn was mowed? Homemakers who need computers must certainly have much more complicated chores than I, who can keep track of everything on the fingers of my two hands. I realize this argument won't faze the dedicated gadjet minded up-to-date innovator who just has to stay on top of all the latest developments. Like my wife. She can stand openmouthed and fascinated in front of gadjets all day long - electric toothbrushes, totally impractical cheese slicers, massaging shower heads, automatic apple peelers, electric ground-warmers, automatic card-shufflers and bird feeders, fake fireplaces, and gadjets for recording how many gadjets she has.
I know now how my parents felt when the motor car swept the country and the airplane was invented, when radio became popular and television came into being, and even when bubble gum was invented. I should probably feel even more left behind. But I don't. Give me "the good old days" (whatever they might have been) and the bare necessities of life. Let my hammock swing free in the wind under the pines all by itself.
Obviously this essay was written quite some time ago. To bring it up to date one would have to consider telephones that play music and take pictures and can be carried everywhere, thus enabling their owners to be in constant communication with someone at all times. This is extremely convenient as it allows one to report on precisely what one is eating at the time of the eating, where one is sitting in the airport waiting for their plane, what they purchased within minutes of when they purchased it, what color it is, how no one else has it, their precise location on the street at the moment, and so on. I have no doubt that soon these phones will be able to wash your dog, shampoo your hair, and cut your nails while also giving you a massage. There are other gadjets nowadays so complicated I cannot even describe them. I confess to be hopelessly lost in the past when people still used bows and arrows (gadjets), spears (gadjets), flint and stone (gadjets), atlatls and boomerangs (super gadjets), and whatever. At least they didn't need batteries. But, as a fragile and helpless human being, I guess I have to say, give me gadjets or give me death.

Horrors!

A friend this morning loaned me a book entitled America the Broke by Gerald J. Swanson. While I have not completely finished it there is no doubt where it is leading. America is about to go broke. Kaput. Finished. Bankrupt. Insolvent. Unable to pay its bills. Impoverished. Reduced to scavenging in garbage piles. Hungry. Sick. Ruined. Swanson says it may be not too late to save us. I wonder.

Actually, this book doesn't tell me much of which I didn't already know or suspect. However, it does it in a language so simple and direct, and in such detail as to make me want to run off into the dark night shrieking and screaming. I mean, you don't have to be very bright to know that you can't keep spending billions of dollars you don't have before you are going to be in big trouble. Borrowing billions of dollars from China and Japan to give huge tax breaks to people in the U.S. who are already so obscenely wealthy they couldn't possibly need it, and allowing giant Corporations to pay virtually no taxes at all, would not seem to be fiscally very responsible. Laying off workers, reducing benefits, outsourcing jobs, and so on, while at the same time paying CEO's several millions of dollars PER YEAR no matter how well or badly they perform would likewise not seem to be very sensible. But that is what we have been doing, especially under the Bush/Cheney administration, and there is no doubt that eventually it will bring about the downfall of the American dream (which has already become more like the American nightmare).

Meanwhile Bush/Cheney continue to insist the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and there is no truth to the fact that they lied repeatedly, unconscionably, deliberately, and maliciously to drag us into a "war" that was/is completely illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary. The record is there. Their words were recorded for posterity. We know exactly what they said. And we also know that much of what they said was totally untrue: there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and Sadam, Sadam had WPM's, there were mobile biological labs, planes that could attack the U.S., stockpiles of terrible chemicals, and on and on. Many of these claims were based upon testimony by Iraqi defectors they knew were completely unreliable - but they used them anyway. Dick the Slimy is, of course, the great grandfather of all liars while he piously complains the democrats are making false accusations. Cheney is a liar. A serial, pathological, disgusting, unprincipled, dishonest, and, yes, reprehensible (to use his term) liar. If you don't want to believe me go look up his record for yourself. It's all there for the world to see.

Much of this disastrous situation is our own fault. How and why could we just stand by and allow these guys to continue to give tax breaks to the filthy rich while at the same time doling out billions of dollars for a completely bloated defense industry, starting a ridiculous and apparently endless "war" for no good reason (or at least for no good reason that has ever been explained)? How could we have just stood by and allowed them to worry us about gay rights and abortion instead of medical care and education, deteriorating superstructure, poverty, the environment, employment, and other pressing needs here at home? What on earth is wrong with us? And why do we not do something about it right now before it will be too late? Time IS running out. We cannot stand another three years of Bush/Cheney. They should resign or be impeached NOW before they can do completely irreparable damage to what was once our great nation. Read America the Broke and tell me how you look forward to the future.