The Godfather - comments

I am convinced that any further discussion of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Neocon disaster is fruitless. Far more than enough has been said. It is now time for some serious action. As nothing seriously seems to happen along those lines I suggest we now either put up or shut up. Either we rescue our Republic or we give it up for a dictatorship.

As a distraction, a few comments on The Godfather, the movie and the book. I have just now read the book for the first time. Usually when I see a motion picture based on a well-known book I assume that the book will be much better than the movie. In this case I am not so sure. It is most interesting that Puzo maintained all along he was writing a book for the sole purpose of making money. It is equally interesting that Coppola said he made the movie only so he would be able to then make movies he really wanted to make (another example of sheer commercialism). And yet, between the two of them they managed to make a great motion picture that will no doubt remain as a classic.

What I find most interesting about this is that there are large sections of the book that do not appear in the movie, and there are very important situations in the movie that do not appear in the book. For example, the bits about the relationship of the family to the Senator, including the famous blackmail scheme, are not in the book. Similarly, the relationship of Michael to his wife, Kay, is totally differenct in the book than how it is portrayed in the movie. The character of Fredo is quite different in the book and he is not murdered by his brother. All of the Cuba scenes and situation are absent in the book. Vito Corleone's revenge attack on the man who tried to kill him as a boy is completely absent in the book. At the same time many of the best scenes in the movie are taken directly from the book. The wedding ceremony, the death of Sonny, the offer that couldn't be refused, Luca Brasi, Michael's murder of the police captain, the death of Michael's Italian wife, and many others.

So what does one make of this? I don't know that it matters a great deal. But I think this is a rare case where the movie is much better than the book. The movie manages to mostly ignore the rather blatant sex (which clearly was written to make money), although there is some sex in the movie. The story, I think, is much more tightly organized in the movie than in the book. The movie, with the exception of Diane Keaton, is very well cast. The supporting actors are all first rate. The flashback to the emergence of Don Corleone I think was superb. In short, I like the movie better than the book. The book comes across as a rather obvious attempt to titillate and make money. The movie much less so. But, what does it matter what I think anyway? Enjoy both the book and the movie. And try not to think about our current pretend Godfather who comes across more like the village idiot.

Drinking the kool-aid (and then some)

There will be no Morialekafa until tuesday night. Be prepared for a new bunch of pathetic lies (speeches) from President Numbskull.


Actually, Republicans must be imbibing something much stronger than the kool-aid these days. Consider the following Republican remarks in the last couple of days:

Bill Frist, the nitwit leader of the Senate Republicans, defending Bush, actually said (I can't believe he was serious but he would like to be President) about those criticizing Bush, criticizing our "Commander-in-Chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer is wrong." Leading us with a bold vision (stay the course, stay the course, stay the course)? Making us safer in our homeland (we are far less safe now than before)? Frist apparently won in the straw poll for who Republicans wanted the most to be their candidate in 2008 (he shipped in supporters to insure he would win).

Then there is Karl Rove, boy genius, who has not been roviating a lot lately (too busy trying to stay out of jail). In a recent speech to another audience of brain dead Republican faithful said, "we will not leave Iraq until total victory." Conveniently, he did not define total victory. Some think he must mean winning the elections in 2006, as it is unlikely we will ever win total victory in Iraq. Indeed, it is as meaningless to talk of total victory in Iraq as it would be to claim Republicans have souls. Just what in the hell would victory in Iraq entail? A government that will be totally subservient to U.S. interests (this seems to be a lost cause)? Perhaps total victory means we will have killed the last Iraqi on earth (we seem to be really trying as hard as we can). I guess total victory means we will not only have successfully brought democracy to Iraq but it will spread throughout the entire Middle East (this is about as likely as pigs flying - actually far less likely). But I know it sounds good. Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld all seem to think it could possibly happen (they are not known for being right about one single thing so far).

Zalmay Khalilzad, our Ambassador to Iraq, has now announced that we (the U.S.) do not wish to have permanent bases in Iraq. I wonder if he cleared this with Cheney. What, pray tell, are we going to do with the four billion dollar bases we have been busily constructing all this time? I guess we will just turn them over to the Iraqis. Perhaps they can use them for kindergartens? Or better yet, as hostels for the 2100 Olympics.

Finally, for the moment, there is the case of John (the weird) McCain. At the straw vote the other day he said people (I guess you might consider Republicans people) should vote for George W. Bush, as he is our President, and we should support him no matter what the polls show. Always the sportsman, he doesn't think we should abandon him just because his poll numbers are lower than a snake's belly. I guess he thinks the reasons his poll numbers are so low is just because of the fickleness of the public. After all, those numbers couldn't really mean that Bush is a hopeless, incompetent, numbskull who has come very close to destroying our country.

If you believe any of what these Republican "leaders" say, ask your doctor if you need psychiatric care.

Hearts and minds

They (the Bush/Cheney gang of cutthroats) continue to speak of "winning the hearts and minds" of people in the Middle East. Where do they come by this delusion? How on earth can they even believe it would be possible for us to win the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East. After all, we have unconditionally supported Israel for years, in spite of their blatant land and water grabs, in spite of their absolutely disrespectful treatment of Palestinians, in spite of their constant refusal to abide by any United Nations attempts to curb them, in spite of their program of assassinations and militarism, murder of innocents, and so on.

There is also the problem of the historical record in which we overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah, and constantly meddled in the Middle East in our quest to control their oil reserves, illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, tortured indiscriminately, insisted on forming a puppet government, failed to reconstruct much of anything, allowed their national treasures to be looted, filled their country with spent uranium, killed thousands upon thousands by our sanctions, and god knows what all else. And we think we are going to win their hearts and minds? Oh, yeah, I forgot, we are sending the Hughes woman, a religious nutcase who knows absolutely nothing about Middle Eastern cultures and apparently even less about history, to accomplish this task. Why do I worry? It's all so simple.

I have been reading Bread and Wine by Ignazio Silone. Although it was written quite some time ago (1937) I came across this passage that I might have written just now:
"At the age of seventy-five one can change one's ideas, but not one's habits. A retired life is the only one that suits my character. Even when I was young I lived very much apart. I always kept aloof from politics because of my repugnance to vulgarity. Taste and an aesthetic education always witheld me from action. Besides, my aversion to the present state of things is not political. It is not as a voter but as a man that I find this society intolerable. And then I ask myself what am I to do. I look around and see very little that I can do."

And what about this gem:
"I decided that politics was grotesque--nothing but an artificial struggle between rival degenerates."

I LOVE IT!

The Nightmare years

You know how it is we speak of the Reagan years, the Clinton years, the New Deal, Camelot, and such things. Do you think that in the future anyone will speak of the Bush years? I don't think so. The first years of the 21st century will have to become known as the Nightmare Years. Even the McCarthy years will pale into insignificance compared to the first eight years of the 21st century. The years in which George W. Bush was illegally and unconstitutionally installed as President by the Supreme Court (which was so ashamed it announced that this could not be taken as a precedent). The years in which the United States was deceived into attacking a Sovereign Nation that was no threat either to itself or anyone else. The years in which the Secretary of State went before the United Nations and blatantly lied to make a case for an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and unnecessary war. The years in which the United States, unprecedented in all that came before, announced that torture was actually acceptable. The years in which the President of the United States took upon himself the right to arrest and detain anyone he chose with no rights of self defense, no right to a lawyer, no right to even contact their own families, no right to any protections whatsoever. Persons who could be incarcerated presumably for life with absolutely no right to appeal. The years in which the government could illegally spy on anyone they wished with no warrants and with no probable cause. The years in which people could be fired for having the wrong bumper sticker. Years in which the audience for the leaders were hand-picked for their loyalty before being admitted to the audience. The years in which lying became standard operating procedure, fiscal responsibility became totally irrelevant, might became right, up became down, black became white, no laws were needed because the Executive was above the law, and loyalty to party took precedence over the common good (common good, laughable). Profit became the only acceptable motive for human behavior. Never mind health care, minimum wages, outsourcing jobs, basic human rights of any kind, the environment, global warming, international agreements, nuclear proliferation, poverty, even common decency. Everything was suspended in the interest of profit, greed, and apparently even blood lust. It was not he best of times and the worst of times. It was absolutely the worst of times. The worst of times ever in the history of the United States. It was a time of murder, arson, rape, and looting. A time of might makes right. If they won't give up their resources kill them. Kill, kill, kill. We don't want to buy their oil, we want to control all of it. It's ours. All ours. No one else should be allowed to have it. We are all powerful. The world should recognize our hegemony. They should become like us. We are right. Everyone else in the world is wrong. McDonalds, Kentucky Friend Chicken, Wendy's, Burger King, Coca Cola, all good. Why can't everyone be like us? Stupid savages. Speak English, damn it. What's wrong with you? Don't you understand we are only doing this to help you? Aaaaagh! Stop the planet. I want to get off.

Dead?

Watch 'n Wait: thanks for the tip. Good site.

Congress today apparently told Bush/Cheney that their Dubai ports deal was dead in the water, could not possibly be approved, and that was that. They have enough votes to override any threatened veto. They didn't make at all clear what might happen now.

This reminds me of an anecdote I once read somewhere (probably in a Doctor's or Dentist's office as that is the only place I ever see a Reader's Digest. I confess I never read anything in the Digest other than the jokes and anecdotes. Similarly, I never read anything in the New Yorker other than the cartoons - ever. I guess this will give you an indication of the shallowness of my character. But I digress).

It seems that a well known gambler died and his funeral was attended by relatives and many of his peers. The minister was saying something to the effect, "Nick hasn't really died, he's just passed on to another place." A voice from the rear of the church said, "eight to five he's dead." I strongly believe that in the case of the Dubai ports deal, it's eight to five it's not really dead. They (Bush/Cheney and their universally dishonest colleagues) will figure out a way to put lipstick on the pig and get away with it in spite of the opposition. It's the Republican way.

There is more and more talk about impeachment. Several towns in Vermont have voted for impeachment. The concept is more and more being mentioned, even in such disreputable places as the Wall Street Journal. But it's still all just talk. I guess it's good that Congress has blocked the Dubai ports deal (or at least have pretended to), and there is still talk of indicting Rove and perhaps even Cheney, and maybe someday we'll really know what happened prior to 9/11, and as we don't torture there's no need to dwell on that unpleasant topic, and of course Blair/Bush did not conspire to start an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and unnecessary war, and things are going well in Iraq. Rumsfeld is still standing around pretending to be Secretary of Defense and basically saying, "what's going on here?" The fact that Rumsfeld is still Secretary of Defense after all these years tell you all you need to know about the totally hopeless incompetent Bush/Cheney administration. The only one who has been continually more wrong than our senile Secretary of State is our pathological Vice-President who seems to be running the country (if it can be said that the country is actualy running).

Will something happen? Will Patrick Fitzgerald actually resurface someday? Is there any hope at all? Please stay tuned.

Republican beat goes on

Man, oh man, the Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush at the moment as fast as they can. They want to kill this Dubai deal now! Real action. Protect our ports! National security! No foreign control! What's going on? How could we be selling our vital assets to foreigners? Might I suggest that the reason we are selling our vital assets to foreigners is because we have to? What happens to people who find themselves falling further and further into debt and have no other way to borrow money? They have to sell their hard assets. That is what we are doing. This is exactly what selling public lands is all about. We don't have the money to pay for our rural schools so we will sell our land to pay. Of course once we sold the land we can't sell it again. It will be gone. So what happens next? I guess, like in China and other Asian countries, we sell our female children.

Do you really believe that the members of the House are vitally concerned about national security? Do you think if Bush's poll ratings were 65% they would be doing the same thing? Of course not, they don't give a damn about national security, they want to be re-elected. That's it. Period. End of story. We've been selling our assets for years and no one was much concerned about it. But now that Bush has been caught red-handed, and now that 80% of the public is opposed, it is suddenly a problem that needs immediate attention. Republicans are desperate to stay in power, so desperate that if it comes to it they will even ditch Bush/Cheney. If our Corporate masters decide that Bush/Cheney have become liabilities it will be all over for them. Republicans are only interested in profit. They will sell the rope to hang themselves.

Notice that the Intelligence Committee, with its Republican majority, voted to not investigate Bush/Cheney's illegal warrantless wiretapping (spying). Apparently Republicans think it is good that we should have illegal wiretapping. Oh, yeah, there will be a committee (of Republicans) to oversee it so that will make it okay. If the laws don't allow you to do whatever you want just change the laws. It's the Republican way.

You will also notice that Tom DeLay actually won in the Texas primary he was running in, in spite of the fact that he is under indictment and is widely known to be about the biggest sleazeball in Congress. Texas Republicans don't care how dishonest he is, they are only concerned with power. I bet that if Al Capone and John Dillinger were still alive and running as Republicans they would be elected in landslides. They are cut from the same cloth as our current crop of Republicans - dishonest, criminal, unconscionable, greedy, short-sighted, nasty, hypocritical, and without any saving graces.

War criminals belong in jail, not the White House.

Ho hum - and an essay on Democracy and Education

Will someone please wake me up when the House, Senate, or anyone else actually does something about the disaster that is Bush/Cheney, something, that is, other than just talk about it. The situation is quite clear. There is no question about what they have done. They clearly should be held accountable. Personally, I think impeachment would be too good for them. They should be arrested for war crimes and put on trial. Al Gore, who actually won the election of 2000, should be installed as interim President and everyone, without exception, should stand behind him while he tries to clean up this horrendous mess. Of course I know this will never happen. But I can dream, can't I? Or is dreaming now prohibited too?


In order to have and maintain a viable, healthy democracy you must have an informed and well-educated citizenry. At the present time in the United States we have neither. The media have abandoned any pretense of providing news of importance in favor of endless hours of trivial sensationalism about Michael Jackson, runaway brides, Janet Jackson’s breast, Paris Hilton, Britney’s pregnancy, and other such vital matters. If you wish to learn anything substantial about important things like the obscene “war” in Iraq, the Gannon/Guckert scandal, the torture and other scandals that are being covered up, the obscene national debt, the failure of 9/11, warrantless wiretapping, etc., you have to go to the internet or to foreign news sources. The state of our major media in the United States is shameful. In answer to a viewer’s question, “Why aren’t Iraq truths printed?” an editor on our only major newspaper summed up his rather evasive answer by commenting, “No paper is showing circulation gains covering the war in Iraq.” He meant to imply that newspapers actually were covering the war in Iraq at great expense even though Americans, he claims, don’t want to hear about it. In fact, our newspapers are not printing the truth about Iraq. Their sole goal nowadays is to provide “infotainment” to increase circulation, not to provide a public service, even though they are supposedly obliged to do so, not to act as watchdogs over our increasingly dishonest politicians, not to act as a “fourth estate,” to perform the functions in society that up until a short time ago they have always provided. They want to make money. And yes, the media are in fact controlled by a very small number of huge corporations that toady to the Bush/Cheney Administration and manage the news. It is not hard to understand why the Bush Administration does not want us to know the truth. Most Americans I know would like to know the truth.

When it comes to education the situation is just as bad and perhaps worse. The only way you can have a healthy democracy is to have a well-educated citizenry. The only way you can have that is to have first-rate public schools. Our current public schools are far from first-rate. Indeed, they are arguably not even second-rate. Nowhere is this more true than in the State of Idaho. Schools are one of the most basic, important, and necessary institutions in any civilized country, fundamentally as or more important than police and fire protection. As such they should be prized, well-funded, and secure. Under the Idaho system they must in effect beg for funding year after year. If local people refuse to pass levies the schools suffer. Hypothetically, you could have schools one year but not the next. Of course this rarely happens. But what does happen is that the very best you can hope for are mediocre schools one year and poorer schools in other years. This is an absolutely absurd situation. I don’t know who originated this scheme in the first place but it is clearly our Republican controlled legislature in recent years that has caused this situation to persist. Perhaps back in the days of one-room schoolhouses, horse-powered farming, cannonball warfare, hand cranked telephones, and outdoor privies, this might have been acceptable. But this is the 21st century! Children have to be prepared to cope in a modern world of enormous complexity, technological sophistication, and rapid culture change. It is becoming increasing obvious that our schools are nowhere near up to this challenge. The U.S. is demonstrably falling further and further behind other nations such as Japan, China, India and others. The so-called American Century is about to come to a close. But our (Republican) powers that be refuse year after year to adequately fund our schools. One Republican legislator a few years ago even suggested changing the State Constitution so the state would have no responsibility at all for funding schools. More recently they have engaged in endless legal maneuvers to escape responsibility. In the meanwhile the schools continue to deteriorate and the children suffer the sins of thoughtless and short-sighted adults.

The idea of the fundamental and crucial value of Public Schools and universal education to a large and healthy democracy in the abstract I think cannot be denied. In practice, of course, it is difficult to achieve such a perfect situation. Obviously there are good and bad schools, depending upon the value local people place upon their particular schools and their willingness to reliably fund and support them. If there are bad administrators and teachers, or both, which regrettably there sometimes are, they should be held accountable by the citizenry. But never forget you pay for what you get. If you refuse to provide decent salaries or proper facilities you obviously won’t get much. Public Schools are an absolutely fundamental institution in American society and as such they should have assured continuity and reliable funding year after year and not have to resort to annual begging. It is not only the children and the schools that suffer. If a community has mediocre or worse schools, intelligent, ambitious, and creative people are going to avoid them, thus insuring a spiral of further and further decline and decay.
There is absolutely no way you can argue that poor schools are “good enough” or an asset to a community. If you can’t afford schools, especially in these modern and trying times, you don’t deserve children.

I strongly suspect that beginning with Ronald Reagan it became official Republican policy to starve and downgrade education in the United States. Republicans and Corporate America do not want citizens who are both aware and think for themselves. They prefer peasants.

Go figure

You must have all heard about the guy who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan. So consider this: two Iraqi women who wished to come to the U.S. to participate in a program to help the American people understand what is happening in Iraq were refused visas. They were refused visas because we (the U.S.) thought they would not want to return to Iraq after their speaking tour. Why would they not want to return to Iraq? Because we killed their entire families and therefore they would have no reason to return. Simple? Yes. Stupid? Incredibly. Mean? Entirely. Is this a great country or what?

One of the Iraqi women who did manage to get into the U.S. for this speaking tour was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. In the course of the interview she observed that the only people that could possibly benefit from a Civil War in Iraq would be the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. needs an excuse to maintain a permanent presence in that unfortunate country. Sensible? Yes. True? Probably. Is this a great country or what?

South Dakota has voted to return to the 18th century. All abortions are to be illegal, except to save the life of a mother (but not in cases of rape or incest). What a fine idea. Let's send all the women who want and/or need an abortion into the alley where they can be aided by the help of coathangers or other such useful devices. A spokesperson for John McCain says he would sign such a bill because he thinks it is up to the states to decide such matters (happily he has no authority in South Dakota). Other Repoublicans have said the same thing - it ought to be up to the states to decide such things (except, I guess, in cases like Terri Schiavo). I think this is an absolutely wonderful idea. Just think, if we had followed this line of reasoning all along we could still be lynching people in Mississippi and Georgia for whistling at white women. Trees all over the south could still be bearing their "strange fruit." Is this a great country or what?

Bush, not content with having illegally allowed the sale of ports to Dubai, has now entered into a secret deal with India to provide them with nuclear materials so they can make more bombs. Cleverly, he avoided a similar deal with Pakistan. I'm sure this is going to make things in that part of the world safer for everyone. Congress is said to be upset at not being consulted. They are also said to be upset over not being consulted about the Dubai deal. And, of course, they are upset about being not consulted about illegal wiretapping. But that's it, they are upset. But not enough to actually do anything about it. Talk, talk, talk, that's what they do. Is this a great country or what?

"Liberty isn't a thing you are given as a present..."You can be a free man under a dictatorship. It is sufficient if you struggle against it. He who thinks with his own head is a free man. He who struggles for what he believes to be right is a free man. Even if you live in the freest country in the world and are lazy, callous, apathetic, irresolute, you are not free but a slave, though there be no coercion and no oppression. Liberty is something you have to take for yourself. It's no use begging it from others."

Ignatzio Silone
Bread and Wine

Inspiring words are they not? What we seem to have here in our country at the moment might be better described as something like "Courage a poo-poo."

Oops!

I just watched the Academy Awards. This is something I do not ordinarily do, partly because I have very little interest in them and also because I rarely, if ever, see any of the movies that are nominated and involved. In spite of my abysmal ignorance of the movies and this annual event I still managed to predict most of the major contests. I knew Hoffman would win for Capote. I knew Reese Witherspoon would win. I knew Ang Lee would win for best director. I knew that Cloony would win at least one award. And I also knew that Brokeback Mountain would not win best picture. How did I know this? I don't know. I just knew. I think I knew because I am an American from the Northwest and I know something (I think) about American culture. I forget the other one or two that I predicted correctly. No matter. I confess to knowing nothing and just guessing.

More importantly, and what to my absolute horror I learned by watching this insider backscratching, is the truth about Brokeback Mountain. For months I have heard and read about this movie about two cowboys who are in love. Homosexual love. Horror of horrors! What might this do to our romantic image of the macho cowboys of the American west? Would it be well received in Kansas? Would the public embrace it? Would it be box office? Would it win the award for best picture? Would the two male leads win Oscars? How daring to openly embrace such a theme in a major motion picture. How sensitively it was directed by Ang Lee. A movie so advanced it marks a major change in American culture. And so on.

IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT SHEEPHERDERS!!! The "cowboys" are actually sheepherders in Wyoming. SHEEPHERDERS!!! Cowboys HATE sheepherders. To call sheepherders cowboys is offensive beyond belief. It's worse than calling Iranians Arabs. This is a mistake so egregious it cannot be forgiven. While I admire Ang Lee as a director, he clearly is out of touch with American culture on this one. He is clearly ignorant of all the literature and movies about cowboys versus sheepherders (and there are many). No self respecting cowboy would have anything to do with sheep or sheepherders. Ever. Under no circumstances. Not only have I not seen this movie, there is no way now I would ever go to see it. Do not misunderstand! I don't care if it is a movie about homosexual love, cowboy love, or universal love. I don't care if it is sensitive in its portrayal of these basic human emotions. It is not a movie about cowboys. It's a movie about sheepherders. Sheepherders are to cowboys what Republicans are to truth and beauty, to decency and fair play, to reason and justice. Sheepherders (Sheepmen as they are often referred to) just do not have the same romantic image that cowboys do. Not even close. This is probably why they try to pass this movie off as about cowboys (you know, those ridin' ropin' bronco bustin' two gun heroes who save the widows and orphans and such). Who would go see a movie about sheepherders falling in love, gay or not? Sheepherders are loners, spending their time with just their flocks and their trusty dogs, living in cramped run down wagons, inventing golf out of boredom and such things.

Don't misunderstand. I don't personally have anything against sheepherders. I'm sure we need them just like we need mechanical engineers and ship captains and doctors and (I was going to say lawyers but I caught myself just in time) and farmers of all kinds. I don't even care if gays marry and have children. But cowboys don't like sheepherders. This is a basic fact of the old west (and probably the new west as well). To promote Brokeback Mountain as a movie about gay cowboys is a travesty. Ang Lee is a great director but he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of America (at least the American west) here. My god! SHEEPHERDERS!!!

I confess that one reason I watched was to see how Jon Stewart would do. While he was not Billy Crystal, I thought he did well. Jon Stewart is exceptionally bright and very quick. Larry King is terrified of him. The tongue is mightier than the sword. At least sometimes. Peace (what a ridiculous expectation). I bet that if there was only one man left on earth he would be at war with himself.

Donkey - short story

Another weekend. Nothing happens on weekends. Indeed, at the moment nothing much happens at all except more hollow talk. If anything important did happen the MSM wouldn't tell us about it anyway. We can't handle the truth. So here is another short story to keep you occupied until something, someday, somewhere, somehow, happens.


Alfredo warmed the powerful outboard carefully in the early morning darkness. As we left the pier heading straight to sea the nineteen footer began to pick up speed. We waited for sunrise and the dolphins. Where you found the dolphins you also found tuna.
We never spoke until after sunrise although I don't know why. Mitchell was always the first to see the powerful black and white torpedo shapes weaving so gracefully in and out of the water. He would point, Alfredo would cut the throttle, and we'd begin to troll the artificial squids, little heavy metal cones with colored rubber skirts. As there was only one rod and reel we used a handline on the other side of the businesslike old cruiser. Alfredo would have liked a new boat, or at least another rod and reel, but there wasn't much chance of that.
When the twin lures were following at the appropriate distance Mitchell fastened the lines to the long guide poles with heavy rubber bands. When a fish struck the rubber bands snapped with a loud pop and the action began. On the rod it was exactly like sportfishing. With the handline you had to be careful not to cut your hands. The result was the same, a fine fish you could sell for a good price. Sometimes we received as much as a dollar a pound. Even one or two tuna at a hundred, sometimes two hundred pounds, was a good morning's work. Of course we didn't get fish everyday, but, then, it didn't take much money to live there in the quiet village.
Being otherwise chronically unemployed Alfredo and Mitchell regarded fishing as work. But it was fun, too. They laughed at the tourists who chartered expensive boats to do what we did for free. Of course we didn't get our picture in the paper standing there with a rod in our hands and the fish hanging from the scale to an admiring audience in front of the hotel. We didn't enter the annual fishing derbies either. We didn't care. We thought what we did was better.
Whether the fish came by handline or rod and reel the thrill was the same. The tuna were fighters, and strong. You had to be careful to play them out before bringing them close to the boat. Even then, sometimes with a last desperate effort, one would manage to throw the hook and escape. The best and most beautiful part was seeing the gorgeous creatures coming up out of the deep water all phosphorescent blues and greens, ancient survivors from another time, another world. The colors faded quickly once they were in the boat.
We'd been trolling for two hours with no luck when the CB radio sounded. Alfredo carried on a brief conversation, none of which I could hear from my seat near the outboard. Mitchell must have understood as he immediately began to bring in the lines. Alfredo made a sharp turn to port and accelerated.
"Where we going?" I asked Mitchell.
"You'll see," he said, laughing.
The Pacific was calm and we rode the swells easily. Alfredo stared ahead obviously trying to locate something. We were at least ten miles out to sea. He adjusted our course slightly and then I saw the other boat riding dead in the water. I thought something must be wrong and they had called for help.
"What's wrong?" I asked, walking to Alfredo at the helm.
"Donkey," he said.
"What?"
"A Donkey. They've got a Donkey. You can help. Go forward on the bow and when I bring us close enough jump into their boat."
By then I could see someone with a rod obviously playing a fish. He wore a harness to help hold the rod just like the charter boats used and was holding the heavily bent rod tip up as hard as he could. Another man was standing behind him. Alfredo skillfully brought the bow in close and yelled for me to jump, which I did, successfully, but with little grace. As I approached the two men I recognized them from the village but couldn't remember their names.
"Marlin," the standing man said. "You want to work him for a while?"
"Me?" I said, incredulous.
"He's big, really heavy," he went on. "You can try it." He tapped the younger man on the shoulder, pointed at me, and began to help him out of the harness. They worked quickly and suddenly I was in the chair with the butt of the big rod anchored in the harness. I noticed with relief that a small nylon line fastened both rod and reel to the harness so that if I lost control the expensive outfit would not disappear into the ocean.
At first I couldn't feel anything except how heavy the rod seemed. It took all my strength just to hold it steady. Just when I thought I might be losing it, Alfredo, now standing on my right, reached over and released the drag. The line played out rapidly and then suddenly stopped.
"Put the drag back on," Alfredo ordered. I did as I was told and could feel the heaviness again. Then I felt the line go slack so I began to reel it in, reeling as fast as possible until the tip almost touched the water, then lifting it skyward so as to reel again, and then doing it again and again, trying to retrieve as much line as possible before the big fish decided to run once more.
"Good," Alfredo said. "Keep it up."
I stayed with the fish for forty five minutes. There was no holding him when he decided to run, but there was plenty of line and he would inevitably stop and give me a chance to recover some of it. I noticed the fingers of my right hand were bleeding from the friction of the reel handle and my inexperience. At Alfredo's instructions I slipped out of the harness and he put it on himself. We had still not seen the fish but there was no doubt it was there. Then Alfredo yelled and pointed with his nose and I saw the marlin come out of the water about a hundred yards away. It leaped high in the air shaking its head and crashed back into the blue water. Then it came out shaking again, trying desperately to throw the hook.
"God! It's huge!" I'd never seen such a big fish. Alfredo laughed and began reeling, trying to gain a little more on the creature.
"Come on, you Donkey!" he yelled, and laughed some more.
After Alfredo had worked for a half hour and had the fish a bit closer he motioned me back into the harness. I was eager now but worried about what everyone would think if I lost it just when it ought to be played out. The fight continued. I held him steady for a time and then he ran off to starboard. When he paused I reeled as fast as possible, then we tested each other again, and so it went for another half hour. Finally I sensed weakness. I worked him slowly, carefully, closer and closer to the boat. Then he was there, right alongside, looking like a section of log until he thrashed about banging his head against the side and I could see the wicked sharp sword. A black marlin! I watched, holding my breath, as Alfredo and the skipper of the boat simultaneously sunk sharp gaffs into the monster and held it against the side of the drifting boat. It took four of us to lift it into the cockpit where it stretched out almost touching both fore and aft.
"Four hundred pounds," said Alfredo.
"Bigger," said the skipper. "Maybe five hundred."
We left them with the fish and boarded our own boat to follow them back to the village. It was long past the time we usually stopped fishing. As we approached the island the water turned an increasingly brighter blue, exaggerating the whiteness of the surf as it broke on the grasping volcanic fingers that reached into it as if to hold ocean and land together. Coconut palms grew thick in groves with here and there a dilapidated frame house sitting among them as though it had been there for as long as the trees themselves. Children played on the shingle beach in the cove. From where we were they looked like tiny scurrying amphibians. Behind them the land rose sharply with rocky cliffs and awesome peaks rising up into an almost permanent cloud cover. Jade green gave way to emerald and then to myriad darker shades of green as your eyes were swept upwards to the sharp ridges at the summit. Except for the clouds obscuring the peaks the sky was as blue as the ocean.
"Why did you call the marlin a donkey?" I asked Alfredo. The three of us were standing close together watching the island as it slowly grew larger.
"It takes too long to catch one and they aren't good for anything," he replied.
"Can't you sell it like the tuna?"
"Naw," Mitchell said, "they won't give you anything. Maybe ten cents a pound. It's not worth it. They say they're full of mercury. Poison."
"They're a pain in the butt," Alfredo continued, "we don't like to hook one but sometimes you do; they go for the squid just like the tuna. But they break up your tackle and waste your time. The tourists can have 'em all for all we care. That's what they pay for, so why not?" Mitchell nodded his agreement.
Just then I noticed Glenn's small unpainted boat coming in. He must have fished later than usual also. Although Glenn was part native he didn't belong to the village. He lived with his wife and infant daughter just outside it on the barren lava without even a tree to shade his two small tents and the miscellaneous odds and ends of crates and boxes that made up his home. He was a college dropout who had just appeared one day in an old van with no explanation other than announcing he was going to fish. He was part Asian and part Portuguese and looked more like an islander than anyone else within miles. His parents lived on the coast several miles to the north but there was no easy access to the ocean there. Glenn acquired an old boat from somewhere, with a coughing old outboard we heard regularly every morning. People in the village thought he was crazy. He thought he was going to live the good life, outdoors, close to nature, no pollution, crime, traffic, ulcers; the romantic vision so characteristic of the times. He wasn't a hippy, just a local boy who apparently had had his fill of university requirements, politics, regimentation, and, lately, demonstrations. He fished diligently every day as we did but without much luck, a fact he attributed, perhaps rightly, to his smaller boat which did not allow him sufficient mobility to pursue the widely ranging schools of tuna. He barely caught enough to survive but stubbornly kept on while his wife spent hot lonely days in the small camp taking care of the child, reading and sometimes writing not very good poetry. They rarely visited the village although they were welcome, especially the baby.
We tied up to the huge concrete foundation that served as the village dock. The original structure had disappeared so many years previously no one knew what it had been. Glenn tied up just as we were collectively lifting the huge marlin onto the lower of the two concrete ledges we used for unloading. There was a crowd of women and children including Alfredo's and Mitchell's wives who, wondering why we were late, had come to wait at the dock.
As everyone was admiring the marlin I could see a carload of tourists drive into the village. They noticed the crowd, parked, and, ignoring the large and obvious sign that read "Private Property, Keep Out," traipsed through Auntie Sally's yard and right out onto the dock. Three middle aged couples, from the midwest I guessed, all dressed in his and her outfits. The man in the lead walked up to look at the fish as the crowd parted to make way.
"Wow! he said, "look at that swordfish." He turned to his companions. "Just look at that. I never saw a fish like that before except in pictures." The others made appropriate noises and stood looking at the huge shape oblivious to the quiet stares of the villagers and the hostile silence that surrounded them.
"I've got to have a picture," the man exclaimed. "You," he pointed to Glenn, "stand over there by the fish."
"I didn't catch it," Glenn protested, "I didn't have anything to do with it."
"Aw, that don't matter," the midwesterner said. "Go on, stand over there. Right there." He pointed to a spot where he thought Glenn should stand. Glenn looked at us, shrugged, and took his place. I could see from his expression how badly he wanted to tell them how disgustingly rude they were. I fought back the same temptation. We both knew there were many good reasons the villagers did not want trouble with the tourists. "You kids there, move back a little," the photographer ordered, motioning them away with his left hand while sighting through his camera. "You, take off that hat," he commanded. For some reason no one could understand Glenn always wore a black watch cap while fishing. He dutifully removed it and held it in front of him with both hands. As he did so he turned to the fish and kicked it as hard as he could.
"Roll over donkey," he ordered.

Let's hear it for torture!

What is it about torture that Bush/Cheney can't understand? Now they are trying to argue that the anti-torture legislation (the McCain amendment) doesn't apply to Guantanamo (actually, according to Bush, it doesn't apply anywhere as he will torture whenever and wherever he wants). But why would they argue against not torturing at Guantanamo? Obviously they think torture should be allowed, especially if it occurs outside of the Continental United States. Can you believe this? No modern country in the history of the world has ever argued that torture should be an acceptable method of interrogation. This is not to say they haven't done it, but they certainly haven't admitted to it (as in the case of the U.S. for the past who knows how long). Torture is unacceptable no matter where or under what circumstances it occurs. Period. That's it. There can be no argument. It is a recognizable violation not only of international law but also the laws of the United States. It is NOT PERMITTED! Anywhere. For any reason. Why should the U.S. be allowed to hold captives for years without any legal recourse, treat them however abusively they wish, brutally force feed them, interrogate them endlessly, and deny them even the most basic of human rights? The entire civilized world (if, indeed, one could believe the world is "civilized") is outraged over Guantanamo and is demanding it be shut down. But Rumsfeld, our senile and disgusting pretend Secretary of Defense insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Guantanamo is a wonderful place, a model of a prison, where the food is wonderful and everyone is treated like a prince (especially the teenagers).

I gather that Bush/Cheney are determined to start the nuclear arms race all over again. How else can you explain their new attempts to upgrade our nuclear arsenal, manufacture new and more creative nuclear bombs, spread nuclear know-how to India, and blatantly violate all nuclear agreements signed up until now? How is it that India can have nuclear weapons, Pakistan can, Israel can, we can, Britain can, France can, Russia can, even Korea can, but Iran can't? Do they (the utter morons that are in control at the moment) actually believe that if Iran had nuclear weapons they would immediately try to attack Israel or anywhere else? Do they believe the Iranians have a death wish such that they would do something to get their country immediately blown off the face of the earth? Of course Iran would like to have nuclear bombs if they could. They would be insane not to want them. Under the circumstances the world would probably be a safer place if they had them. Indeed, probably every country ought to have nuclear weapons as that seems to be the only guarantee they won't be bullied and threatened by those who have them.

And the farce continues. People still talk about bringing the troops home. The situation in Iraq is such that now we won't be able to bring the troops home, the Iraqi army isn't able to take over so we can't bring the troops home, we are looking into bringing the troops home, etc. GODDAMN IT! We have no intention of bringing the troops home. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. That has been the intention from the very beginning. I am convinced that the only people who have any grasp on reality at all are the Iraqis themselves. They know we have no intention of allowing them to have a legitimate democratic government that isn't totally subservient to the United States. And they are doing whatever they can to prevent us from doing just that.

I bet if you looked up stupid in the dictionary you would find a picture of George W. Bush. If you looked up evil you would find a picture of Dick the Slimy. If you looked up senile you would find Rumsfeld. And if you looked up inept you would find a picture of Condi Rice. It's a wonderful world we are living in. Happy days!

Republican scum

Scum, as near as I can discern, has to do with a layer of dirt, froth, or other impurities rising to the top of a pond or something. Is this not a perfect description of what has happened to the Republican Party? Consider only a few of the recent developments:

Bush/Cheney have requested 100 million dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. This is the only reconstruction they intend to carry out for the next year. ALL of this money is to build more prisons. Need I say anymore about this?

It turns out that since 2001 the amount of money and time devoted to mine safety has decreased to the point where there are now some two or three thousand cases in a backlog of litigation. There are also thousands, even millions of uncollected fines for mine safety violations. This is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney policies having to do with cooperation with mine owners.

Bush/Cheney have requested 27 million dollars to jump start a new nuclear program designed to update and improve our nuclear arsenal. As there are other millions hidden here and there in other bills this is merely the tip of the iceberg. This is in direct violation of all nuclear disarmement agreements the U.S. has signed, a blatantly criminal activity on the part of our government.

Laura Berg, a VA nurse, is being investigated on charges of sedition because of a letter she wrote to her local newspaper critical of the Bush/Cheney administration. This is a blatant violation of her right to free speech. And don't forget the problems many have had with t-shirts and bumper stickers in the past few months.

Residents of the Navajo reservation are fighting to prevent the development of a new uranium mine near one of their towns. The corporation that wants to do the mining is offering mucho dinero to the families that own the land where they want to develop the mine. Other families who live nearby are fearful for their health. As teenagers in this part of the reservation are 17 times more likely to develop cancer than anyone else in the U.S. you might think they have a reasonable objection. Indians are fair game just as they have always been. They are supposed to be a sovereign nation. When it comes to exploitation their sovereignty will probably just be ignored.

Bush was advised in no uncertain terms of what was in store for New Orleans when Katrina struck, including the fact that the levees might well be breeched. He listened to the presentations, asked not even a single question, announced that we were completely prepared, and went on vacation. A few days later he said, "no one knew the levees might be breeched," just another of his blatant lies. "Who would have thought they might fly airplanes into buildings." "We know they have WMD's," "there is a relationship between Iraq and al Quaida," etc., etc.

Is there nothing so atrocious, so illegal, so immoral, so disgusting, so unconstitutional, so untruthful, so ridiculous or absurd that Bush/Cheney will not be forgiven? Scumbags! There is no better word to describe Republicans (and unfortunately some Democrats as well).

As we have fallen so low, why not Lieberman for President? Maybe Zeb Miller? How about another village idiot?

Whatever happened to reality?

Let's see...A majority of Americans now think the "war" in Iraq was a mistake and we should withdraw the troops as soon as realistically possible. Murtha, speaking for many others as well as himself, says we should withdraw as soon as feasible. A recent poll indicates that a vast majority of the troops in Iraq believe we should leave, some immediately, some after six months, still others after a year. Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War (never mind the BS about being on the "brink" of one). The vast majority of Iraqis believe we should leave as soon as possible. However, Bush/Cheney insist we should "stay the course." Hilary believes we should send more troops. If you can find even the remotest semblance of reality here you are entitled to win the belly-button lint collection contest. Even Buckley acknowledges that the project has failed, as do others who previously were all gung-ho for it. If there is, indeed, any reality here it has to be let's get the hell out of there as fast as possible. As Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld are living in fantasyland I guess we will "stay the course" unless someone, somewhere, somehow, someway, can convince enough others to insist on forcing them to glimpse reality at last. With Bush's ratings at 34%, Cheney's at a blistering 18%, you would think the time had come for some form of action. But, no, Bush is off to India where tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets against him. He is apparently oblivious to this, just as he seems oblivious to the polls. He seems to cling to the delusion that he is somehow "leading."

Bush has been caught once again in a blatant lie. He was informed that the levees could be breached days before it happened. His answer was to go on another vacation. He was warned before 9/11 there might be an attck on the U.S. His response was to go on vacation. The fact is, his brain has been on vacation since birth. He has lied consistently about everything. In fact, I don't believe he has EVER told the truth. Even now 34% of Americans support him. Funny, I didn't realize that the percentage of deaf, dumb, and blind in America was quite that high.

It appears that our new Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito, has written a thank you letter to Dobson, the influential Evangelical moron, thanking him for his help in getting on the Supreme Court. I hope the nitwit Democrats that voted for him are paying attention.

A most interesting development. Ehab Elmaghrady, an Egyptian, who was picked up after 9/11 on no charge other than being a Muslim, and held in jail for about a year, during which time he was seriously abused, was awarded $300,000 dollars by an American court. This is the first time such an award was given for such a thing. What I think makes this so significant is that if it is taken as a precedent there will be hundreds, if not thousands of similar cases in the future. So multiply $300,000 by X and see what you might come up with. Not to worry, just add it to the trillions of dollars we already owe.

It appears that this Dubai deal may be actually waking people up to the fact that foreign companies (and governments) have taken over control of some 80% of our ports. Were you aware that China is in control of both ends of the Panama Canal as well as some of our ports? Do you know that Costco is owned by the Chinese Government? These facts are merely the tip of the iceberg, a result of the idea of "free markets" and globalization. So wake up America! Oh, I forgot, we're lost in Lost. Do you think there will ever be a "Found?"

Ratings

Isn't it exciting to know that Bush's ratings have now reached a bare 34%? Of course that is high compared to Tony Blair's 28% and Dick the Slimy's 18%. And isn't it depressing to know that it doesn't seem to matter one iota? Bush flies off to India just as if he is king of everything (even though, truth be told, no one wants him there). Cheney continues his secretive, paranoid ,strange, under the rocks lifestyle, emerging occasionally to speak with a handpicked sympathetic audience (although how he finds anyone sympathetic to him boggles the mind). As I have said previously (and I think cannot be said too often), if either Bush or Cheney had any interest whatsoever in the American public or American democracy they would resign immediately. This pair, sick and sicker, have destroyed our wonderful country all in the interest of their own greedy self-centered Corporate masters. They have murdered and tortured to the point of no return. They have to continue because they have no excuse, no defense, and no way out other than prison or worse. And the Republican party which has continued to protect and defend them is just as guilty as they are. And the same thing goes for the MSM. The problem is, the cancer is so huge by now it is virtually impossible to treat. It has obviously infected many Democrats as well. It is, I fear, very close to terminal. If we continue to let it go untreated we will quite likely all have to pay the very unpleasant consequences.

Interesting that when trying to defend the Dubai takeover of some of our major ports Bush said (I think it was Bush), what's the problem, many countries including China are in charge of our ports? Now aside from the fact that Dubai is an Arab country that happens to own the corporation that is about to take over these ports, and has a very questionable relationship with Osama bin Laden and others, there is a more basic question: why are our ports being managed by foreign companies in the first place? Are there no competent American companies that could do this? If they don't want to do it, why not? As there is virtually no security at our ports to begin with, why take a chance on an Arab country? As only 5% of the millions of containers that enter our ports are examined in any way, perhaps it doesn't really matter who manages them? What the hell, everyone deserves to make a buck. Sleep well in the knowledge that Bush/Cheney are looking after you.

Bush and Cheney Torture Daily.

Going from bad to worse

This business of selling control of our ports to Dubai is bringing to light just how bad things are here in the U.S. It seems that this is only one deal out of hundreds in which we are simply selling our assets to foreign governments. Hard assets, like ports, not just questionable bonds and such. This is obviously the same thing involved in the Bush/Cheney attempt to sell public lands. These kinds of assets, when gone, are gone for good. We will eventually not even own our own country. In short, we are so far in debt the only thing we can do is sell off our hard assets. I guess that is great news? The more we learn about this deal with Dubai the worse it stinks. Despite White House claims that there were no objections it turns out there were, in fact, serious objections from the Coast Guard and others. They were ignored. It also turns out there are intimate connections between Dubai and the Carlyle Group (surprise!). The deal is apparently illegal as well. But that won't bother Republicans who have already caved in to the White House. There is apparently absolutely nothing so outrageous, illegal and disgusting that Republicans won't support. Don't be surprised if the major Democrats don't also cave. If anyone believes that Dubai voluntarily requested a 45 day investigation they are too far gone for help. This is nothing but another scam designed to help Bush save face.

Because of increasing international pressure to close Guantanamo prison the Administration has now taken to sidetracking prisoners to a prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, that, according to reports, is even worse than Guantanamo. It has also become increasingly obvious that the torture that goes on in our scattered gulags is certainly not the result of a "few bad apples." Indeed, it is the result of many years of CIA research into just what kind of torture works the best. This torture business that our government is engaged in, including the Extraordinary Renditions, is so illegal, so vile, so disgusting, so horrendously awful it will define us as no better than Nazis probably forever. It cannot make anyone proud to be an American. Good god! What has happened to our country? Bush/Cheney and the neocons simply have to be held responsible for their heinous crimes against humanity. Those who continue to support them, Republicans or Democrats, are equally guilty.

Gloomy sundays - and an essay on baking

Sundays are gloomy, my hours are numberless, slumberless, and meaningless. Nothing happens on sundays. There is no news, no mail, no activity, no nothing. Blah. I look forward to mondays (I must be the only person in the world that does so).

Someone asked if I was "political." I have been a lifelong Democrat. I am probably closer to a socialist (except in the U.S. you can't be a socialist because a socialist is a liberal and we all know how terrible they are). The terms socialist and liberal have been so poisoned by the Republican media they probably should be abandoned. Republican is now merely a euphemism for fascist, but of course no one would admit to that. Being political in North Idaho is like being low chicken in the pecking order. This is the redest of the red states. The most Republican stronghold. The armpit of rational thought. The vast Republican majority here where I live do not read and apparently get their news only from Rush Limbaugh. I attend meetings of the local Democratic party. As there is no point in voting Democratic in Idaho I trade my vote somewhere else where it might do some good. It is frustrating to say the least. I believe things are improving slightly but entering the 20th century is proving difficult. There are a few liberals here. Actually, I think there are quite a few closet liberals as well. As my wife is the head of the local Democratic party, and she is tough as can be, there is hope. You can see why I indulge myself like the following nonsense.


This is another of those things I ponder even though it has no practical significance whatsoever. I don’t worry about it. I think about it and become confused. What, for example, is the difference between baking and roasting? I put this question to my wife (who is a super cook) and she said baking usually has to do with things like pies, cookies, and other pastries. That is obviously not definitive. I looked it up in a dictionary and found that: bake (cook food) in dry heat, like an oven. No exposure to flame.
Under roast: cook (especially meat) in an oven or exposed to open heat. This, of course, doesn’t get one very far. Clearly, if something is exposed to open flame it can be considered roasting rather than baking. But what about other cases? Potatoes are a good example. If you put a whole potato, skin and all, into an oven you are clearly baking. But if you peel that same potato, put some olive oil on it, and stick it in the oven, you are roasting it, no? What if you held a potato over an open fire, peel on or not? Obviously no one would do that because it would take too long. But hypothetically, would it not be roasted? How about if you wrapped it in something and buried it in the hot coals from an open fire? Baked or roasted?
It appears that you don’t bake vegetables in the oven, you roast them. If you put a piece of pork in the oven you are said to be roasting pork, always. No one ever says baked pork. Except in the case of ham. No one roasts ham, they bake it. Always. Both of these items are put in the same oven, most probably at the same temperature, so why is one roasted and the other baked? Similarly, you rarely hear of baked chicken, even though it goes into the same oven as the roasting chicken. You never hear of a weenie bake. It’s always a weenie roast. But the marshmallows you put on the same sticks and hold over an open fire are not described as being roasted, merely toasted. See, it does get confusing. Now what if you had a really hot oven with no open flame and you put your weenie on a stick and held it in the oven. Would it still be roasted, or would it be, could it be, baked? How about the marshmallow? Would it be toasted or baked? Bread is always baked. No one ever suggested roasted bread.
It is always roast beef, roast pork, roast leg of lamb, roast chicken, and so on. But what about baked fish? No one ever says I’m roasting a fish, do they? If you put the fish on a stick and held it over an open flame would you be roasting it? I guess. How come when eggs are cooked in an oven they are said be shirred rather than baked or roasted? Would it be possible to roast an egg? Apples and pears are always baked, never roasted. Anything cooked on a spit over and open flame is certainly roasted. But what about these new ovens that include a turning spit but there is no open flame. Is the stuff being baked or roasted? Maybe that’s what they mean by “broasted?”
It does seem clear that bread, cookies, pies, cakes, and such things are always baked. But why is it that when beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and such are actually being baked, they are said to be roasted? Apparently it has less to do with the actual mode of cooking as it does with what the item being cooked is. It is all much too confusing for me. It reminds me of the Bush/Cheney administration. In the case of cooking I confess it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference whether or not something is baked or roasted. In the case of politics and torture I think it does, so I worry about it a lot. So should you. Cheers.


,

The farce continues

How is it that Bush continues to be a super-duper fundraiser even though his approval ratings are dismal? Actually, a dumb question. As he continues to do his work solely for the filthy rich and the corporations they continue to support him. Do you really believe they care what we peasants think of him? As long as he does their bidding they are going to support him. And after all, what's a million or two to corporations or billionaires? If you haven't already got it, there is a war going on between corporate power and the rest of us. They are winning. This marriage of corporations to government is called fascism (ask Mussolini).

As a way for Bush to save face over the ridiculous Port security issue the Republican leaders (Frist, et al) are suggesting a new 45 day review of the deal. As it has already been vetted by the Republican controlled committee that does such things, what do you think they are going to find? Why, I bet they find that it is perfectly fine for a Dubai owned corporation to manage our ports. Surprise!

Will it interest you to learn that Dubai has at least an eight billion dollar investment in the Carlyle Group? You know, I hope, that the Bush's are prime movers of the Carlyle Group. But I guess that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Bush has threatened his first veto ever if anyone tries to interfere with the port deal. Naw, of course not.

It will not surprise you to learn that Arabs are exceedingly scornful of Condi Rice's hypocrisy when it comes to democracy in the Middle East. They observe, rightfully, that Hamas won the Palestinian election fair and square, but the U.S. and Israel, predictably, won't accept the outcome.

Ted Koppel, who is far better known and infinitely more influential than yours truly, has finally come right out and said what I have been saying all along. The "war" in Iraq is about oil. We need to control the oil in the Middle East or probably suffer the mother of all recessions. As we are totally dependent upon oil we cannot in the foreseeable future not have control over it. And, as China, Japan, India, and Europe also need it in ever growing quantities we have to have control over oil or lose out. Simple, yes? So why do people go on pretending that this is not so, that we really started this illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral "war" in order to spread democracy or some other such nonsense? And why do they go on pretending that we are going to bring the troops home? Do they mean home from the four enormous permanent bases we are constructing in Iraq? I guess we can't admit that we are a rogue and criminal nation intent on plundering that which rightly belongs to others, and that we are willing to kill and torture to that end. We could have bought the oil. The Iraqis were not going to just hoard it.

Flotsam

William F. Buckley, the conservative's conservative, has now stated publicly that the "American objective" in Iraq can be said to be a failure. He does not tell us what the American objective actually was but I guess whatever it was it must be a failure. Well, perhaps not so fast, we did remove Sadam Hussein from power, but the result of that seems to have made things worse than they were before we did so. I guess you could consider even this a failure. Of course we failed to gain control over their oil (at least so far), we certainly are not doing well spreading democracy in the Middle East (not that anyone seriously believed that is what we were doing), and it remains to be seen if we can maintain a permanent presence in that unfortunate country. We certainly didn't capture the WMD's that were not there in the first place. It is now being said that Iraq is teetering on the brink of Civil War. Tee hee, teetering, get that? As Sunnis have been murdering Shiites for weeks and vice versa, and as Kurds have also been fighting with Sunnis off and on, and are busily taking over the northern oil fields, one might say they are already engaged in a Civil War. Let's face it, Buckley is right, Iraq is a total disaster, thanks to Bush/Cheney and their insane neocon troops.

The University of Indiana apparently paid Ann Coulter to give a speech. As must have been expected it was quite controversial. Why anyone, let alone a University, would pay such a completely vicious and nothing but venomous person to give a speech is beyond my comprehension. Coulter is to the lecture circuit as Professional wrestlers are to wrestling.

There is a fund to pay for Libby's defense. It has some two million dollars in it. What I want to know is, do the contributors believe he is innocent? Or do they just not care?

My antiquated computer seems to be slowly dying.

Trust me?

This business of Dubai taking control of the management of six of our major ports seems to have struck raw nerves everywhere. With one exception Governors are not at all pleased, neither are many Senators and Congresspersons. There is lots of tough talk about stopping this deal. Want to bet it won't eventually be approved by the Republican controlled Senate and House?

It appears that Congress was not informed of the deal which has many upset. The deal was apparently consummated in private. Bush claims not to have known about it until just now but insists it is so important he may veto any attempt to stop it. Why would he do that? Could it be that the Bush family has ties with the powers that be in Dubai? No, of course not, even though they do. As usual, Bush says, "trust me." There is no reason to be concerned about security, he claims. The fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists came from Dubai, that the Emirate also had relations with Osama bin Laden, and apparently even funded his organization, seems not to matter to Bush. He can't seem to understand why anyone would be concerned, after all, these people are his friends.

He also seems not to understand there is a difference between England and the UAE with respect to this deal. Molly Ivens pointed out something that I was not aware of, namely, that the Corporation involved in taking over the ports is owned by the nation itself, so it is not just a private corporation like the British one that just sold out. As Molly rightly observes, where corporations are only motivated by profits, corporations owned by countries may well have other motivations. Bush, with his usual deception says, what's the difference between a British corporation managing our ports and an Arab one, completely obscuring this vitally important difference. Rove now generously allows how Bush might agree to a delay. Then they will no doubt try to sneak it through when no one is looking. All the tough talk by Senators and Congresspersons will simply be ignored and eventually forgotten - the same con once again. As usual it will be just talk, talk, and more talk, and no action whatsoever. King George rules equally over Democrats and Republicans alike.

Now the MSM suggests that Iraq may be on the verge of a civil war. Like, where have they been for the past few weeks. Iraq has been engaged in a civil war for quite a while even though no one has wanted to admit it. And even now the Administration wants you to believe it's not too serious and they can still all come together and form a viable government. There is no connection whatsoever between what the Administration wants you to believe and what is actually happening, and never has been. This entire Iraqi "adventure" has been nothing but a pack of outrageous lies from the very beginning and the lying continues endlessly. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction a lie. Iraq had ties with al Qaueda, a lie. We will not maintain a permanent presence in Iraq, a lie. Things are going well, a lie. We don't torture, a lie. It will only cost a couple of billion dollars, a lie. Iraqi oil will pay for it, a lie. We will be greeted as liberators with flowers, a lie. Apparently a majority of the American people think Bush should be impeached if he lied about taking us to "war." He lied. it is perfectly obvious he lied. So why isn't he being impeached? Clinton's lying about sex was impeachable but Bush's lying about taking us into "war" where thousands upon thousand of innocent people have been murdered is not impeachable? The United States under the present Administration is SICK! Republicans and Democrats in position of power and authority are SICK! Citizens who continue to put up with this are equally SICK!

The only explanation I can conceive of is that Americans, after decades of television and other mass media have developed small, smooth brains.

Just the usual chaos

I have only just now returned from my latest "mysterious trip to the west." I have found the usual chaos, maybe worse.

The big story at the moment has to do with a corporation in Dubai buying the rights to manage six major American ports. The Bush Administration is all in favor of this whereas members of Congress and the Senate seem to be adamantly opposed. They seem to think selling such rights to a foreign (read Arab) country, with potential ties to terrorists, and with little or no protection of the ports to begin with, may not be a very good idea. Bush feels so strongly about this he has vowed to veto any attempt to prevent the sale. As he has up to now never vetoed anything, one wonders about his conviction here. As usual, it turns out Bush didn't know anything about this deal until after it had already been approved. And, it also turns out the Dubai company involved has direct ties to at least two members of the White House: John Snow and David Sanborn. Surprise! Bush wants to now argue that to oppose this sale, which actually involves selling something the British had control of to an Arab country amounts to discrimination. Like, what's the difference between a British company and an Arab country? Strangely, if this is all that what was involved I think Bush might have a point. However, Bush doesn't give a damn about such things, he's only interested in promoting corporate interests wherever they originate and whatever they involve. Doesn't it make you wonder why no American corporation wants to manage our ports? Don't ask, don't tell. Bush might have to back down on this one, but don't bet your house on it.

Senator Orin Hatch, that paragon of Mormon idiocy, in a speech to some small group somewhere or other, reportedly said that the only people who don't believe there was a connection between Sadam Hussein and al Qaeda are people with no brains. I take it this means the 9/11 Commission as well as President Bush himself. I certainly believe none of these people have any brains to speak of but what do I know?

One of the most important Shiite Mosques was blown to smithereens and completely destroyed (apparently no one was killed). Shiites immediately attacked several Sunni mosques and the country is on the verge of civil war. Actually, they have been engaged in civil war for some time, with American troops caught in the middle, but no one seems willing to admit it. Call it what you will, Shiites are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shiites and Kurds are engaged in their own business, like getting complete control of Kirkuk where the northern oil fields are. But not to worry, Cheney says the opposition (to Americans) is in the last throes, and Bush and Rumsfeld will tell you that everyhing is going well in Iraq, perhaps not right on schedule, but going well. Of course they also tell you that black is white, up is down, lies are truth, we are good, they are evil, and pigs fly after suitable lipstick is applied.

They will also tell you that our goal is to withdraw American troops as soon as Iraqi troops can "stand up." But this doesn't mean we will withdraw American troops from the four massive permanent bases that are being constructed as we speak.

Dick the Slimy shot 70 pen raised pheasants in one day. He is a "hunter." He shot his hunting companion and tried to blame the victim. Dick the Slimy is a creep and a war criminal who belongs in jail along with his dimwitted dummy.

I have said before that had Al Gore been given the Presidency (which he clearly won and was entitled to) we would certainly not be in this horrendous mess we are now in. Indeed, I believe Al Gore was the most qualified person to become President ever, and was passed over for a bumbling idiot with virtually no credentials whatsoever. This is America the idiotic. The Clintons have made it clear they have gone over to the enemy. Now that they are rich and famous they have cultivated the very people who tried to destroy them (we wealthy people have to stick together). I believe Hilary has already blown any chance of being the Democratic candidate for President in 2008. Her dalliance with Gingrich, support of anti flag burning, warmongering, backpedaling on abortion, and serving on the Board of Directors of Wal Mart defines her as no more than Republican lite at best. The DLC has also been pretty much discredited as almost guaranteed losers. I suspect that Democrats will have to have a distinguished anti-war candidate but who that might be at the moment I cannot even guess.

Remember, however, I said Ronald Reagan could never be elected President. I also said George W. Bush could never be elected. I look forward to seeing Condaleeza Rice as our next President. It's the American way.