I only rarely watch Hardball as I think Chris Matthews is the worst host of such a program I have ever seen. Matthews, to me, is what I would describe best as a "ninny." I never ever watch Tucker Carlson who is such a despicable apparently mindless partisan that it makes me sick. So what I say here comes from an article by Marie Cocco on Truthdig (I think it was also on Buzzflash). According to her Matthews apparently said at one time that men who support Hillary are "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Tucker Carlson said something to the effect that when he sees Hillary he involuntarily crosses his legs as he feels she is "castrating, overbearing and scary." I have to say that whatever I think about Hillary, or have ever thought about her, I have never perceived her as a "castrating female" type. I asked two of my male friends an open-ended question as to what they thought of Hillary and the "castrating female" image did not come up (neither of them are fans of Hillary's). I have concluded on the basis of this non-random, totally inadequate sample, that Matthews and Carlson are apparently more fearful of their tenuous grasp of their masculinity than reality, and their comments tell you much more about themselves than about Hillary.
Bush is in the Middle East trying to drum up support for sanctions and/or attacks against Iran. He claims that Tehran "threatens nations everywhere," and the "security of the world." Come on, now, how is it that they threaten nations everywhere? Do they threaten South Africa or Belize? How about Venezuela and Brazil? Maybe Lichtenstein and Monaco? Costa Rica? Norway? This is obviously more Bush nonsense. He is trying to stir up support for action against Iran at the very moment that Iran's neighbors are opening up discussions with Iran over whatever differences they have. He is apparently too stupid to realize this or to have any grasp of reality in the Middle East (as usual). He claims Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world, apparently because they support Hamas and others who are trying to defend themselves from Israeli and U.S. aggression. And they are "meddling" in Iraq, right on their border, and thus interfering with U.S. meddling there from 8000 miles away. Bush is apparently once again following instructions from Dick the Slimy and the Israelis who have been doing everything they can to bring about a totally illegal and unnecesary military attack on that country. It is Bush and Cheney and their neocon gang that are the greatest threat to the security of the world and blah, blah, blah. Iran has not attacked anyone for more than 200 years and they have legitimate interests in the Middle East that far exceed our dubious plans for that part of the world (which is really none of our business).
Ho-hum. Another death resulting from a Taser. There have now been 160 Taser related deaths since 2001. Either law enforcement people don't know how to use them properly or they are deliberately harming people unnecessarily. Let's do away with them once and for all. If our law enforcement people can't handle little old ladies and others without Tasers they must lack the proper training.
LKBIQ:
"A man said to the universe,
'Sir, I exist!'
'However, replied the universe,
'The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.'"
Stephen Crane
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Quandary
What a quandary! With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama now pretty much battling it out for the Democratic nomination (I don't mean to belittle Edwards although it looks pretty certain he will not make it), it will be virtually impossible to say anything about either one of them without being considered either a sexist or a racist. Similarly, it will be virtually impossible for either of them to say anything about the other without being cricized for the same reason. You may have noticed this has already started. Bill Clinton (of all people) is being criticized for comments he has made about Obama (his misinterpreted suggestion that Obama's campaign is a "fairy tale"), and Hillary is getting flak for her remark about Martin Luther King (who had to have Lyndon Johnson actually fulfill his promise), and so on. Erica Jong (of all people) has basically said that anyone who criticizes Hillary is a sexist. Chris Matthews is being accused of sexism. And so it goes. Perhaps Clinton and Obama should declare a truce and say nothing at all about each other?
Obviously this is not going to prevent wholesale roviation. Karl Rove, the master himself, has already begun. See the piece by R.J. Eskow on Smirking Chimp today for a useful guide to Rove's comments. There is no doubt that this kind of stuff, subtle and not at all subtle, is going to increase as the nominating procedure continues. I seriously doubt that the winner, whoever it may be, is going to escape being tarred as either a racist or a sexist. Clearly there are things that can be said about both candidates that are legitimate, but it is going to take some professional refereeing to sort it out and I doubt the public will have much patience for this. In the case of the Brafia we know from experience there is nothing they won't do or say to win for their candidate. They have already demonstrated they have no shame whatsoever.
Did you know that the Portuguese in the 15th century ushered in the European "Great Age of Discovery?" At the request of the Portuguese King on June 18, 1452, the Pope issued a famous Papal Bull that authorized the King "...to attack, conquer and subdue Saracens, pagans, and other unbelievers who were inimical to Christ; to capture their goods and territories; to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to transfer their lands and properties to the King of Portugal and his successors." (C.R.Boxer, 1969. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415 - 1825.
Nothing very subtle about that. The Portuguese set about doing it on both coasts of Africa, India, and later in Brazil. It became a worldwide bloodbath that allowed the Dutch, Germans, French, English, and even the Belgians to forcefully and most unpleasantly establish their colonies throughout the world, a situation that still haunts us to the present day.
LKBIQ:
"If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
My dear departed Mother.
Obviously this is not going to prevent wholesale roviation. Karl Rove, the master himself, has already begun. See the piece by R.J. Eskow on Smirking Chimp today for a useful guide to Rove's comments. There is no doubt that this kind of stuff, subtle and not at all subtle, is going to increase as the nominating procedure continues. I seriously doubt that the winner, whoever it may be, is going to escape being tarred as either a racist or a sexist. Clearly there are things that can be said about both candidates that are legitimate, but it is going to take some professional refereeing to sort it out and I doubt the public will have much patience for this. In the case of the Brafia we know from experience there is nothing they won't do or say to win for their candidate. They have already demonstrated they have no shame whatsoever.
Did you know that the Portuguese in the 15th century ushered in the European "Great Age of Discovery?" At the request of the Portuguese King on June 18, 1452, the Pope issued a famous Papal Bull that authorized the King "...to attack, conquer and subdue Saracens, pagans, and other unbelievers who were inimical to Christ; to capture their goods and territories; to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to transfer their lands and properties to the King of Portugal and his successors." (C.R.Boxer, 1969. The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415 - 1825.
Nothing very subtle about that. The Portuguese set about doing it on both coasts of Africa, India, and later in Brazil. It became a worldwide bloodbath that allowed the Dutch, Germans, French, English, and even the Belgians to forcefully and most unpleasantly establish their colonies throughout the world, a situation that still haunts us to the present day.
LKBIQ:
"If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
My dear departed Mother.
Friday, January 11, 2008
News 24/7?
I think we should do away with news 24/7. There just doesn't seem to be enough news to go around. Either they just repeat the same news over and over all day long, or they focus on trivia. I suppose that theoretically there ought to be plenty of news. I mean, after all, there's a whole world out there. But here in the U.S. we don't really get much news from around the world. If we do it's generally just an announcement like: Bush Travels to the Middle East, or Bush Meets With Olmert, or some such thing that is not exactly real news. Our MSM only gives sound bites, never any in-depth analysis of anything. They do repeat anything the White House tells them to but, again, that is hardly news.
We get things like Hillary's cleavage or her "cackle," or her pants suits, or hairdo, and Edward's $400 haircut, and now Obama's barber shop, and exciting things like that (that seems to be designed to keep us from getting any real news, like what's really happening in Iraq, or Iran, or wherever). And it steers clear of any of the forty or more scandals of the Bush/Cheney administration. The MSM just bury everything they don't want us to hear, like Wexler's impeachment attempt or just about anything Kucinich says, and so on. Now the latest flap over Bill Clinton's comment that Obama's claims about his opposition to the "war" was simply a fairy tale. This has been converted by the media into Bill Clinton's claim that Obama's pursuit of the Presidency is just a fairy tale. Anyone who has seen the clip of what he actually said knows perfectly well what he said and what he meant. But by keeping the lie alive they keep us from hearing anything about Bush's ridiculous visit to the Middle East and its inevitable failure. Bush's claim that the Palestinian/Israel problem will be solved by the end of his Presidency is just one more example of how out of touch with reality he continues to be.
I guess if the 24/7 news wanted to give us real 24/7 news they would have to spend some money on real reporters and travel, rather than on nice-looking young ladies to read us pap off the teleprompter. I should think the tons of money they are getting from the pharmaceutical industry would pay for some real news, but not, of course, when all the money goes to the CEO's. Do you think all that advertising doesn't add to the cost of your drugs? The main purpose of those ads would seem to be to get us to buy drugs we don't even need. If everyone took their advice and "asked their Doctor," we wouldn't need the ads in the first place. Common sense and reality has long since departed our American culture of the absurd.
Well, it's off to Nevada and South Carolina. That'll keep us informed for days and will certainly keep us isolated from anything the MSM doesn't want us to hear.
LKBIQ:
"There has never been a war yet which, if the facts had been put calmly before the ordinary folk, could not have been prevented. The common man is the greatest protection against war."
Ernest Bevin
We get things like Hillary's cleavage or her "cackle," or her pants suits, or hairdo, and Edward's $400 haircut, and now Obama's barber shop, and exciting things like that (that seems to be designed to keep us from getting any real news, like what's really happening in Iraq, or Iran, or wherever). And it steers clear of any of the forty or more scandals of the Bush/Cheney administration. The MSM just bury everything they don't want us to hear, like Wexler's impeachment attempt or just about anything Kucinich says, and so on. Now the latest flap over Bill Clinton's comment that Obama's claims about his opposition to the "war" was simply a fairy tale. This has been converted by the media into Bill Clinton's claim that Obama's pursuit of the Presidency is just a fairy tale. Anyone who has seen the clip of what he actually said knows perfectly well what he said and what he meant. But by keeping the lie alive they keep us from hearing anything about Bush's ridiculous visit to the Middle East and its inevitable failure. Bush's claim that the Palestinian/Israel problem will be solved by the end of his Presidency is just one more example of how out of touch with reality he continues to be.
I guess if the 24/7 news wanted to give us real 24/7 news they would have to spend some money on real reporters and travel, rather than on nice-looking young ladies to read us pap off the teleprompter. I should think the tons of money they are getting from the pharmaceutical industry would pay for some real news, but not, of course, when all the money goes to the CEO's. Do you think all that advertising doesn't add to the cost of your drugs? The main purpose of those ads would seem to be to get us to buy drugs we don't even need. If everyone took their advice and "asked their Doctor," we wouldn't need the ads in the first place. Common sense and reality has long since departed our American culture of the absurd.
Well, it's off to Nevada and South Carolina. That'll keep us informed for days and will certainly keep us isolated from anything the MSM doesn't want us to hear.
LKBIQ:
"There has never been a war yet which, if the facts had been put calmly before the ordinary folk, could not have been prevented. The common man is the greatest protection against war."
Ernest Bevin
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Change
Imagining the "mark of the beast,"
man cuts off his hand, and
puts it in the microwave.
Everyone is talking about change. Everyone. Even the Brafia. No one seems willing to credit the status quo, although some of the Brafia candidates insist that Bush has done a fine job and they wish to more or less continue the "war" and so on. Change, in the abstract, is pretty meaningless. Some seem to think change means continuing the "war" but doing it better. Some seem to think that starting new "wars" might be a good idea. Democrats are more outspoken about change than anyone else. But they could mean anything from changing the administration, to changing health care, to changing education, to changing economic conditions, to whatever. Speaking of change without specifying precisely what it is you have in mind to change is not really very helpful. Changing the administration would be very helpful, however, no matter what else was involved. Just prattling on about change is pretty ridiculous. Of course there is going to be change no matter who wins the election. There are good changes and bad changes. Which is it to be?
One article on Truthdig today points out what seems to be the fact that Hillary did better in counties where Diebold machines were used than in counties where the votes were counted in the old fashioned way. The difference was not great but great enough to be noticed. Are we to make something of this. I don't think so but it is apparently true. One suggestion is that where votes were hand counted was mostly in rural areas where Hillary would not expect to do so well. Maybe.
Another article I saw suggests that racism may have proved to be involved. As I suggested earlier, people who have to vote in public, as in the caucus system in Iowa, would be less inclined to vote as a racist because they would be exposed. In New Hampshire, where the ballots are cast in the privacy of the voting booth this would not be a factor - hence some New Hamphire voters may have voted against Obama in spite of what they might have previously claimed. Maybe. I doubt this by itself would account for the difference but maybe in conjunction with the former, the two claims might have been part of the unexpected result.
Clinton received a much larger percentage of female votes in New Hampshire than she did in Iowa. This is a matter of fact. But why? Some think the voters in New Hampshire simply resented claims that they would vote like Iowa and were just contrary. Some think Clinton's performance (her tears, etc.) aroused a great deal of sympathy for her and exposed her "human" side which made a difference. Some think that Edwards and Obama ganging up on her made women angry so they came to her rescue. Maybe.
Still others blame the pollsters for just not getting it right. There were too many undecided voters that were not considered, the election was held too soon after Iowa for adequate polling, and etc. Maybe.
I suspect that the answers will come as the contest moves into other states. Obama is widely expected to win, in spite of New Hampshire. If Clinton continues to win we will know that at least some of these factors are wrong. I predicted long ago that Clinton would win because the powers that be wished it. The Diebold claim and the racism claim would fit right in with my beliefs about this. But I do not claimHere that is what is involved. At least not yet. There is, however, no doubt in my mind that racism will raise its ugly head from now on. The roviating will surely be terrible, certainly on the right-wing blogs. I am told it has already begun although I have not seen it myself as yet (I don't read right-wing blogs). I sincerely hope it will be resisted wherever it appears. Racism has no legitimate place in America. Not now. Not ever. I am reserving judgment on the Diebold machines.
LKBIQ:
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politicians corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered
and slanged,
I wept; for I had longed to see him
hanged."
Hilaire Belloc
man cuts off his hand, and
puts it in the microwave.
Everyone is talking about change. Everyone. Even the Brafia. No one seems willing to credit the status quo, although some of the Brafia candidates insist that Bush has done a fine job and they wish to more or less continue the "war" and so on. Change, in the abstract, is pretty meaningless. Some seem to think change means continuing the "war" but doing it better. Some seem to think that starting new "wars" might be a good idea. Democrats are more outspoken about change than anyone else. But they could mean anything from changing the administration, to changing health care, to changing education, to changing economic conditions, to whatever. Speaking of change without specifying precisely what it is you have in mind to change is not really very helpful. Changing the administration would be very helpful, however, no matter what else was involved. Just prattling on about change is pretty ridiculous. Of course there is going to be change no matter who wins the election. There are good changes and bad changes. Which is it to be?
One article on Truthdig today points out what seems to be the fact that Hillary did better in counties where Diebold machines were used than in counties where the votes were counted in the old fashioned way. The difference was not great but great enough to be noticed. Are we to make something of this. I don't think so but it is apparently true. One suggestion is that where votes were hand counted was mostly in rural areas where Hillary would not expect to do so well. Maybe.
Another article I saw suggests that racism may have proved to be involved. As I suggested earlier, people who have to vote in public, as in the caucus system in Iowa, would be less inclined to vote as a racist because they would be exposed. In New Hampshire, where the ballots are cast in the privacy of the voting booth this would not be a factor - hence some New Hamphire voters may have voted against Obama in spite of what they might have previously claimed. Maybe. I doubt this by itself would account for the difference but maybe in conjunction with the former, the two claims might have been part of the unexpected result.
Clinton received a much larger percentage of female votes in New Hampshire than she did in Iowa. This is a matter of fact. But why? Some think the voters in New Hampshire simply resented claims that they would vote like Iowa and were just contrary. Some think Clinton's performance (her tears, etc.) aroused a great deal of sympathy for her and exposed her "human" side which made a difference. Some think that Edwards and Obama ganging up on her made women angry so they came to her rescue. Maybe.
Still others blame the pollsters for just not getting it right. There were too many undecided voters that were not considered, the election was held too soon after Iowa for adequate polling, and etc. Maybe.
I suspect that the answers will come as the contest moves into other states. Obama is widely expected to win, in spite of New Hampshire. If Clinton continues to win we will know that at least some of these factors are wrong. I predicted long ago that Clinton would win because the powers that be wished it. The Diebold claim and the racism claim would fit right in with my beliefs about this. But I do not claimHere that is what is involved. At least not yet. There is, however, no doubt in my mind that racism will raise its ugly head from now on. The roviating will surely be terrible, certainly on the right-wing blogs. I am told it has already begun although I have not seen it myself as yet (I don't read right-wing blogs). I sincerely hope it will be resisted wherever it appears. Racism has no legitimate place in America. Not now. Not ever. I am reserving judgment on the Diebold machines.
LKBIQ:
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politicians corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered
and slanged,
I wept; for I had longed to see him
hanged."
Hilaire Belloc
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
10,000+
Husband takes ipod away from son,
wife hits him in the face,
is arrested for assault.
Can you believe that a President of the United States is so hated and despised that he has to have a security guard of more than ten thousand to visit a small country that is supposed to be one of our closest allies? This is apparently what is involved in Bush's useless trip to Israel. Bush can confer with Olmert all he wants, and then to go on to hold hands in Saudi Arabia, but nothing of substance can possibly come from this trip. Bush is a lame duck President like no other before him. He has no credibility and is in no position to make any serious commitments. The whole world is just waiting for him to go. If he had even a shred of decency he would have gone a long time ago and taken Dick the Slimy with him.
We had the pleasure of a visit from Walt Minnick today. As you know, he is one of three Democratic candidates running for the Congressional seat now held by the completely useless Bill Sali. I liked him. He seems like a truly nice guy. And he seems to be on the right side of most of the issues that concern me. I will be very happy to support him should he win the nomination. However, there were a couple of things that bothered me a bit. First, when he was asked why he was a better candidate than Larry Grant he replied simply, "because I'll win." This implies to me that he believes Larry Grant can't win. I don't believe that. I assume he thinks that he will have the money and support to win whereas Larry Grant will not. I think if Larry Grant had the support of the Democratic party he would win. And I also believe he deserves to win as he has worked for it. I don't believe the accusation that he ran a lackadaisical campaign (he certainly didn't here in Bonners Ferry where he knocked on doors, walked in parades, met with citizens, answered questions, and so on). Minnick also allowed as to having been recruited to run. Who do you think recruited him? The main thing I didn't like very well was the fact that he seems to accept what I think is the French "cryogenic theory of nuclear waste." That is, you stockpile it somewhere safe because you might someday be able to use it. He explained that he knows the problem with nuclear energy is the waste, and he also admits that the nuclear waste in Southern Idaho is eventually going to leak into the water, but he still won't take nuclear off the table because we might need it for a while (at least). I am not only totally opposed to nuclear power plants I believe that anyone who is not, must be unconcerned with life on planet earth. Nuclear waste kills - indiscriminately. And it doesn't go away. It is said that the French re-use nuclear rods until they can't be used anymoe (but are still dangerous) and then safely stockpile them. Perhaps they do. But I have also read that they send nuclear waste to Russia (can't hurt anyone there?). Other than this I was impressed with Minnick and I have no doubt he will be a good candidate and, if elected, a good Congressman. But as for me I will stick with Larry Grant who is an outstanding candidate (whose biggest sin, I guess, is that he's not from Boise and doesn't have as much money).
There are those (on the far right, of course) who think that Hillary Clinton just turned on her tears on purpose (she is a consummate actress?), and still others (also on the far right) who say if you cry you are not fit for public office (like Romney, for example). What a crock, these people hate Hillary with such irrationality they can't, or won't, even give her credit for being human. I don't want her to be the candidate but I find myself now often defending her. I suspect this must have had something to do with the unexpected results from New Hampshire. So keep knocking her, her candidacy thrives on it.
LKBIQ:
"The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
Albert Einstein
wife hits him in the face,
is arrested for assault.
Can you believe that a President of the United States is so hated and despised that he has to have a security guard of more than ten thousand to visit a small country that is supposed to be one of our closest allies? This is apparently what is involved in Bush's useless trip to Israel. Bush can confer with Olmert all he wants, and then to go on to hold hands in Saudi Arabia, but nothing of substance can possibly come from this trip. Bush is a lame duck President like no other before him. He has no credibility and is in no position to make any serious commitments. The whole world is just waiting for him to go. If he had even a shred of decency he would have gone a long time ago and taken Dick the Slimy with him.
We had the pleasure of a visit from Walt Minnick today. As you know, he is one of three Democratic candidates running for the Congressional seat now held by the completely useless Bill Sali. I liked him. He seems like a truly nice guy. And he seems to be on the right side of most of the issues that concern me. I will be very happy to support him should he win the nomination. However, there were a couple of things that bothered me a bit. First, when he was asked why he was a better candidate than Larry Grant he replied simply, "because I'll win." This implies to me that he believes Larry Grant can't win. I don't believe that. I assume he thinks that he will have the money and support to win whereas Larry Grant will not. I think if Larry Grant had the support of the Democratic party he would win. And I also believe he deserves to win as he has worked for it. I don't believe the accusation that he ran a lackadaisical campaign (he certainly didn't here in Bonners Ferry where he knocked on doors, walked in parades, met with citizens, answered questions, and so on). Minnick also allowed as to having been recruited to run. Who do you think recruited him? The main thing I didn't like very well was the fact that he seems to accept what I think is the French "cryogenic theory of nuclear waste." That is, you stockpile it somewhere safe because you might someday be able to use it. He explained that he knows the problem with nuclear energy is the waste, and he also admits that the nuclear waste in Southern Idaho is eventually going to leak into the water, but he still won't take nuclear off the table because we might need it for a while (at least). I am not only totally opposed to nuclear power plants I believe that anyone who is not, must be unconcerned with life on planet earth. Nuclear waste kills - indiscriminately. And it doesn't go away. It is said that the French re-use nuclear rods until they can't be used anymoe (but are still dangerous) and then safely stockpile them. Perhaps they do. But I have also read that they send nuclear waste to Russia (can't hurt anyone there?). Other than this I was impressed with Minnick and I have no doubt he will be a good candidate and, if elected, a good Congressman. But as for me I will stick with Larry Grant who is an outstanding candidate (whose biggest sin, I guess, is that he's not from Boise and doesn't have as much money).
There are those (on the far right, of course) who think that Hillary Clinton just turned on her tears on purpose (she is a consummate actress?), and still others (also on the far right) who say if you cry you are not fit for public office (like Romney, for example). What a crock, these people hate Hillary with such irrationality they can't, or won't, even give her credit for being human. I don't want her to be the candidate but I find myself now often defending her. I suspect this must have had something to do with the unexpected results from New Hampshire. So keep knocking her, her candidacy thrives on it.
LKBIQ:
"The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
Albert Einstein
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Amusing, at least
What a shock! Hillary Clinton, against all polls and expectations, wins the New Hampshire primary. It was both interesting and amusing to watch as everyone on TV, and the candidates themselves, continued to speak of how it was Obama would win, perhaps even by double digits. Not one person even contemplated a Clinton victory, not a single one. This in spite of the fact that she was from 2 to 4 percentage points ahead during the entire time. All of the pundits were wrong. All of the polls were wrong. So what happened?
Some think the voters of New Hampshire just didn't want it to be over so soon so they voted for Hillary to continue the contest. Maybe. Some think it turned around when Hillary cried and expressed her passionate feeling about what she was doing. Some think it was because of the overwhelming support by women of Hillary, unlike what happened in Iowa (which obviously had much to do with it). Some think that voters realized they didn't really know enough about Obama. Still others think it was because she started taking questions from her audiences instead of just making speeches. Of course the analysis has barely begun. In any case it was a remarkable and unexpected comeback.
I personally believe that this remarkable turnaround began during the last debate when the moderator told her that people liked Obama better than her. She replied immediately, "that hurts my feelings." I found that to be a genuinely touching moment and made me change my feelings about her. This is not to say I prefer her as the candidate but I certainly have a great deal of respect for her, and I think I know her better than I did before.
So the quest continues and there is a very long way to go. Nothing will be settled until February 5th. There is little doubt that the American public is fed up with the Bush/Cheney Brafia and overwhelmingly demand change.
LKBIQ:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
Robert Frost
Some think the voters of New Hampshire just didn't want it to be over so soon so they voted for Hillary to continue the contest. Maybe. Some think it turned around when Hillary cried and expressed her passionate feeling about what she was doing. Some think it was because of the overwhelming support by women of Hillary, unlike what happened in Iowa (which obviously had much to do with it). Some think that voters realized they didn't really know enough about Obama. Still others think it was because she started taking questions from her audiences instead of just making speeches. Of course the analysis has barely begun. In any case it was a remarkable and unexpected comeback.
I personally believe that this remarkable turnaround began during the last debate when the moderator told her that people liked Obama better than her. She replied immediately, "that hurts my feelings." I found that to be a genuinely touching moment and made me change my feelings about her. This is not to say I prefer her as the candidate but I certainly have a great deal of respect for her, and I think I know her better than I did before.
So the quest continues and there is a very long way to go. Nothing will be settled until February 5th. There is little doubt that the American public is fed up with the Bush/Cheney Brafia and overwhelmingly demand change.
LKBIQ:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
Robert Frost
Monday, January 07, 2008
Too late by far
George W. Bush, our fake President, is embarking on a trip to the Middle East, a trip that will include his first visit to Israel. After seven years of blatantly supporting Israel or otherwise ignoring the Israeli/Palestinian problem, Bush apparently wants the world to believe that he is going to bring about a solution to this long standing continually festering problem (he apparently also believes this will leave him with a positive legacy for his Presidency). I don't know if this is a world's record for chutzpa, or for arrogance, or for stupidity. Perhaps it is all three. In his last year (how he survived the first seven is utterly beyond my comprehension), while he is a genuine "lame duck," and has no credibility whatsoever, he thinks anyone will pay attention to anything he proposes? Furthermore, he has to deal with Olmert who has not much more credibility and little power to negotiate much of anything. Similarly, Addas, the pretend leader of the Palestinians, is also not in a position of enough power to negotiate anything much. It's like three old men in a tub slowly sinking into the Mediterranean while refusing to believe the tub leaks like a sieve.
This trip is presumably a follow-up of the Annapolis conference Bush organized, an attempt that accomplished nothing. I don't think it was meant to accomplish anything other than offering Israel more time to build more illegal settlements and continue their slow genocide of the Palestinians. How can anyone even talk about negotiations when the Palestinians have no power and nothing to offer but their dignity. This trip is just a gigantic waste of taxpayer money that will result in nothing. And of course the idea of negotiating without Hamas and the people in Gaza is absurd on the face of it.
Yes, I know the all-important New Hampshire primary is tomorrow. I'm already sick of it. I guess on the Brafia side it will be a contest between the Chief Warmonger and the Lying Mormon. For the Democrats it will be Obama the Younger against Clinton the Older. In any case Hillary will not give up until after February 5th no matter what happens tomorrow, and Obama won't either. Look for the roviating to begin in earnest, especially if Obama wins the nomination.
LKBIQ:
My poet friend, Barbara H., has been working very hard since her last poem. This one, dedicated to pet owners everywhere, goes as follows:
Oh Oh Oh
the cat is in the snow
She's becoming verbose.
This trip is presumably a follow-up of the Annapolis conference Bush organized, an attempt that accomplished nothing. I don't think it was meant to accomplish anything other than offering Israel more time to build more illegal settlements and continue their slow genocide of the Palestinians. How can anyone even talk about negotiations when the Palestinians have no power and nothing to offer but their dignity. This trip is just a gigantic waste of taxpayer money that will result in nothing. And of course the idea of negotiating without Hamas and the people in Gaza is absurd on the face of it.
Yes, I know the all-important New Hampshire primary is tomorrow. I'm already sick of it. I guess on the Brafia side it will be a contest between the Chief Warmonger and the Lying Mormon. For the Democrats it will be Obama the Younger against Clinton the Older. In any case Hillary will not give up until after February 5th no matter what happens tomorrow, and Obama won't either. Look for the roviating to begin in earnest, especially if Obama wins the nomination.
LKBIQ:
My poet friend, Barbara H., has been working very hard since her last poem. This one, dedicated to pet owners everywhere, goes as follows:
Oh Oh Oh
the cat is in the snow
She's becoming verbose.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The war party
I spent almost four hours last night watching the "debates." They were somewhat more in the form of real debates than all of the previous ones. First, of course, the war party and then the Democrats. I found it hard to believe just how warlike the war party really is. Just more war, more troops, more occupation, more killing, and so on. And with the exception of Ron Paul they all seemed to share this warlike stance. Amazingly, I thought, they even kept saying what a wonderful job Bush has done (made me wonder if we occupy the same planet). McCain, of course, continues arguing that the surge is working and that we will attain a victory. Victory is still to be defined as I, at least, have no idea what victory in Iraq would consist of (having killed every last one of them and stolen all of the oil?). Somewhere I read that McCain is interested in war for war's sake, no matter what it accomplishes. I think that may be right. Poor Ron Paul, the only one that seemed to me to be even half sane, was virtually hooted down every time he mentioned anything sensible. I must say I was truly shocked to hear Giuliani's absolutely astonishing claim that American Foreign Policy has nothing to do with the situation the the Middle East. It is, he claims, "completely irrelevant." No one even bothered to challenge this absurd claim except for Paul but no one listened to him anyway. I was rather surprised they did not paint their faces, drum, and do war dances. It was an incredible performance. Each one trying to outwarmonger the next. It was as if none of them (except Paul) had heard that the vast majority of the American public is sick to death of their "war," and want out as soon as possible. Where does the Brafia even find such characters?
I (happily) missed most of tonight's performance. What I did see was merely a repeat of last night's discussion of immigration and McCain and Romney engaging in their ongoing semantics about what constitutes amnesty. Totally unrewarding. I gather from some of the comments at the end that Romney seems to have done the best (I'm not sure what the "best" is in this context). The most interesting part, in a way, as the end when each candidate was asked to say why they should be President and what they would do as President. Most of them want to build a fence or otherwise keep anyone from illegally entering the country. Tellingly, not one of them mentioned ending the "war," or bringing the troops home. It's like they are all secretly pledged to endless killing and bloodshed. And they want us to believe that things are better now. Better than what? There are over a million innocent Iraqis killed, almost 4000 American troops killed, probably 40,000 injured and maimed in one way or another for life, 4 million Iraqis displaced, no one knows how many tortured, and human misery in the trillions of units (if, that is, there were units for misery). There seems to be a lull in the killing. I guess that's what they have in mind when they claim things are better. The surge is working, they say. But the surge, which was designed to give the Iraqis time to settle their political differences, has failed miserably in that dimension.
Someone, I forget who at the moment, once said that a second marriage was "the triumph of hope over experience." I can't help but think of that when I consider Barack Obama and his "Audacity of Hope." If Obama should get the nomination (and I think it is too soon to tell), I sincerely hope he will surround himself with good, solid, experienced advisers, and will actually listen to them. And I also hope he will hold accountable the war criminals that lied us into this disaster.
This is a new laptop (my regular computer is still not fixed) and I am having trouble getting used to it. The keyboard is a bit different and it has some rather strange quirks. No doubt it will all settle down in a few days.
LKBIQ:
"This interlude of school makes a somber gray patch upon the chart of my journey. It was an unending spell of worries that did not then seem petty, and of toil uncheered by fruition, a time of discomfort, restriction and purposeless monotony."
Sir Winston Churchill
I (happily) missed most of tonight's performance. What I did see was merely a repeat of last night's discussion of immigration and McCain and Romney engaging in their ongoing semantics about what constitutes amnesty. Totally unrewarding. I gather from some of the comments at the end that Romney seems to have done the best (I'm not sure what the "best" is in this context). The most interesting part, in a way, as the end when each candidate was asked to say why they should be President and what they would do as President. Most of them want to build a fence or otherwise keep anyone from illegally entering the country. Tellingly, not one of them mentioned ending the "war," or bringing the troops home. It's like they are all secretly pledged to endless killing and bloodshed. And they want us to believe that things are better now. Better than what? There are over a million innocent Iraqis killed, almost 4000 American troops killed, probably 40,000 injured and maimed in one way or another for life, 4 million Iraqis displaced, no one knows how many tortured, and human misery in the trillions of units (if, that is, there were units for misery). There seems to be a lull in the killing. I guess that's what they have in mind when they claim things are better. The surge is working, they say. But the surge, which was designed to give the Iraqis time to settle their political differences, has failed miserably in that dimension.
Someone, I forget who at the moment, once said that a second marriage was "the triumph of hope over experience." I can't help but think of that when I consider Barack Obama and his "Audacity of Hope." If Obama should get the nomination (and I think it is too soon to tell), I sincerely hope he will surround himself with good, solid, experienced advisers, and will actually listen to them. And I also hope he will hold accountable the war criminals that lied us into this disaster.
This is a new laptop (my regular computer is still not fixed) and I am having trouble getting used to it. The keyboard is a bit different and it has some rather strange quirks. No doubt it will all settle down in a few days.
LKBIQ:
"This interlude of school makes a somber gray patch upon the chart of my journey. It was an unending spell of worries that did not then seem petty, and of toil uncheered by fruition, a time of discomfort, restriction and purposeless monotony."
Sir Winston Churchill
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Dead space
Window washer falls 47 floors
but survives. His wife insists
he find another line of work.
Dead space. No, I'm not talking about the space between the ears of George W. Bush. I'm reflecting on something that has been bothering me for some time now. We have been making quite a lot of trips from Bonners Ferry to Seattle and back. From about 20 miles west of Spokane all the way to approximately Ellensberg, there are more than a hundred miles of what appears to be entirely dead space. That is, you can drive all those miles repeatedly and never see a living creature, aside from an ocasional bird. I mean nothing alive. You don't even see any dead live things. No road kill. Nothing in the way of animal life. I don't recall that it has always been so. I seem to remember from many years ago when I occasionally drove that route there were always animals of some kind: rabbits, coyotes, snakes, mice, lizards, and such things. What has happened to them? I swear you can drive this route repeatedly and never see anything alive, or even dead. Nothing. I find it quite amazing. How is it that such a huge area seems to have been rendered entirely sterile, absent of life forms that used to be there? I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps my memory is faulty and it was always so. But I don't think so. Have we managed to poison and/or trap all the coyotes and other creatures that were once there?
Then, ironically, driving west, just before you get to Vantage, Washington, there is a Memorial to Wild Horses. If you look to the left up on one of the ridge tops there is a herd of sculptured metal wild horses clearly visible against the sky. I'm all for art, and I understand the sentiment, but at the same time it always fills me with an ineffable sadness. Why do we have to have fake wild horses? Why couldn't there be real wild horses? There seem to be thousands upon thousands of acres that must have once supported such creatures, along with many other species. Are we to just be satisfied with fake creatures from now on? We could have artistic renditions of the pygmy rabbit, for example, as they are on the verge of extinction. And coyotes, we could have replicas of coyotes, perhaps even desert tortoises, along with fake rattlesnakes and desert mice. A whole world of fake animals to replace those we seem to have decimated. A whole artificial world to complete the one we already live in.
LKBIQ:
"I write in order to attain that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved, which a cow enjoys on giving milk."
H. L. Mencken
but survives. His wife insists
he find another line of work.
Dead space. No, I'm not talking about the space between the ears of George W. Bush. I'm reflecting on something that has been bothering me for some time now. We have been making quite a lot of trips from Bonners Ferry to Seattle and back. From about 20 miles west of Spokane all the way to approximately Ellensberg, there are more than a hundred miles of what appears to be entirely dead space. That is, you can drive all those miles repeatedly and never see a living creature, aside from an ocasional bird. I mean nothing alive. You don't even see any dead live things. No road kill. Nothing in the way of animal life. I don't recall that it has always been so. I seem to remember from many years ago when I occasionally drove that route there were always animals of some kind: rabbits, coyotes, snakes, mice, lizards, and such things. What has happened to them? I swear you can drive this route repeatedly and never see anything alive, or even dead. Nothing. I find it quite amazing. How is it that such a huge area seems to have been rendered entirely sterile, absent of life forms that used to be there? I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps my memory is faulty and it was always so. But I don't think so. Have we managed to poison and/or trap all the coyotes and other creatures that were once there?
Then, ironically, driving west, just before you get to Vantage, Washington, there is a Memorial to Wild Horses. If you look to the left up on one of the ridge tops there is a herd of sculptured metal wild horses clearly visible against the sky. I'm all for art, and I understand the sentiment, but at the same time it always fills me with an ineffable sadness. Why do we have to have fake wild horses? Why couldn't there be real wild horses? There seem to be thousands upon thousands of acres that must have once supported such creatures, along with many other species. Are we to just be satisfied with fake creatures from now on? We could have artistic renditions of the pygmy rabbit, for example, as they are on the verge of extinction. And coyotes, we could have replicas of coyotes, perhaps even desert tortoises, along with fake rattlesnakes and desert mice. A whole world of fake animals to replace those we seem to have decimated. A whole artificial world to complete the one we already live in.
LKBIQ:
"I write in order to attain that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved, which a cow enjoys on giving milk."
H. L. Mencken
Friday, January 04, 2008
Apologies
Bubblehead: Would you please use your influence with Bush to release my computer from his evil clutches. Doubling up on my wife's laptop doesn't work very well.
My apologies to Jerry Brady. I know his name is Jerry Brady. I've always known it was Jerry Brady. He's even been a guest in my house. I don't know why I typed John Brady. I think it was a missed synapse in my aging brain.
Jerry Brady did endorse Minnick. I don't know whether he endorsed Obama or not. In any case Jerry Brady is not going to be the Chair of Idaho Democrats, having lost out this evening to Keith Roark who, I am confident will be great in the job (actually I think Jerry Brady would also be fine but as he already committed himself to Minnick I don't think it would have been entirely kosher).
Someone suggested that I must be a conspiracy buff because of what I wrote about the Good Ol' Boys of Boise. I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I merely described what seemed to be happening. Grant was a fine candidate but they want Minnick. Brady endorsed Minnick but also wanted to become Chair of Idaho Democrats. Cecil Andrus had some influence in these goings-on as did John Foster. All I can say is, if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be....a conspiracy. Furthermore, I do not see how I was "smearing" Cecil Andrus or Jerry Brady by simply reporting what seemed to be happening. I am a supporter of Larry Grant. I think he's a great candidate and deserves to be elected to Congress. He has nothing whatsoever to do with my blog. I do not consult with him or vice-versa. As far as Cecil Andrus goes, I think he was a great governor, and he's probably a great guy. But I don't think Boise ought to single-handedly try to run the entire State of Idaho. This probably has to do with my youth in Wallace when Boise was always meddling in our affairs. They seemed to think that the values of farmers in Southern Idaho should be forced on a small, wide-open mining town in the north. They failed but they never gave up, the money always spoke more loudly.
Anyway, Cecil Andrus, John Foster, Jerry Brady, Walt Minnick, and the rest of the Good Ol' Boys are entitled to think and do as they will. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with them. And when the time comes that we are not even allowed to speak of their doings it will be a sad day indeed.
LKBIQ:
"We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for a hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter--and to write in the books of law."
Lyndon B. Johnson
My apologies to Jerry Brady. I know his name is Jerry Brady. I've always known it was Jerry Brady. He's even been a guest in my house. I don't know why I typed John Brady. I think it was a missed synapse in my aging brain.
Jerry Brady did endorse Minnick. I don't know whether he endorsed Obama or not. In any case Jerry Brady is not going to be the Chair of Idaho Democrats, having lost out this evening to Keith Roark who, I am confident will be great in the job (actually I think Jerry Brady would also be fine but as he already committed himself to Minnick I don't think it would have been entirely kosher).
Someone suggested that I must be a conspiracy buff because of what I wrote about the Good Ol' Boys of Boise. I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I merely described what seemed to be happening. Grant was a fine candidate but they want Minnick. Brady endorsed Minnick but also wanted to become Chair of Idaho Democrats. Cecil Andrus had some influence in these goings-on as did John Foster. All I can say is, if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be....a conspiracy. Furthermore, I do not see how I was "smearing" Cecil Andrus or Jerry Brady by simply reporting what seemed to be happening. I am a supporter of Larry Grant. I think he's a great candidate and deserves to be elected to Congress. He has nothing whatsoever to do with my blog. I do not consult with him or vice-versa. As far as Cecil Andrus goes, I think he was a great governor, and he's probably a great guy. But I don't think Boise ought to single-handedly try to run the entire State of Idaho. This probably has to do with my youth in Wallace when Boise was always meddling in our affairs. They seemed to think that the values of farmers in Southern Idaho should be forced on a small, wide-open mining town in the north. They failed but they never gave up, the money always spoke more loudly.
Anyway, Cecil Andrus, John Foster, Jerry Brady, Walt Minnick, and the rest of the Good Ol' Boys are entitled to think and do as they will. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree with them. And when the time comes that we are not even allowed to speak of their doings it will be a sad day indeed.
LKBIQ:
"We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for a hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter--and to write in the books of law."
Lyndon B. Johnson
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Beware of Good Ol' Boys
Beware the Good Ol' Boys of Boise who seem to be determined to have things their way, as usual. I am trying to understand this so be patient. First, understand that in the last election there was a perfectly fine Democratic candidate for U.S. Congressional Representative, Larry Grant. In this red state he came very close to winning against the Republican eccentric (I am being generous), Bill Sali, who was supported by no less than Vice-President Cheney who made two trips to Idaho for him, and also rather handsomely by the Club for Growth. Larry Grant is running for this office again in this election cycle. I believe there is little doubt that with even nominal support from the Idaho Democrats he would easily defeat Sali who has proven to be a virtually useless body in the House of Representatives.
But for whatever reason the Good Ol' Boys of Boise have decided to run another candidate, thus potentially splitting the Democratic vote. Their rationale for this seems to be their claim that Larry Grant ran a lackadasical campaign which, personally, I do not believe. In any case, their candidate, Walt Minnick, has lots of money and thus believes he can win against Sali (which is probably true as my useless cat, Katie, could probably win against Sali this time). So if it was simply a case of money the Good Ol' Boys could have contributed to Larry Grant and the Democratic party would be pretty much assured of a victory. So why Walt Minnick? He is well-known and widely liked but, more importantly, he is a Good Ol'Boy and Larry Grant is not.
But the plot thickens. The Chairman of the Idaho Democratic party, Richard Stallings, just resigned and has to be replaced. Apparently, taking a page out of the Republican game plan, John Foster, acting in conjunction with ex-Governor Cecil Andrus, simply wanted to appoint a new Chair for the Party, a procedure not in accordance with the rules. Not only did they want to improperly install a new Chairman, they wanted to install one who has already endorsed their candidate, Walt Minnick, which would appear to me to be somewhat unethical. Thwarted in this endeavor, there is now to be a meeting via telephone conference call tomorrow afternoon (Friday, January 4th), to vote on a new Chairman. There is one candidate, a lawyer, Keith Roark, who has promised to be entirely neutral in this procedure, and is widely respected. But undaunted, the Good Ol' Boys are going to nominate John Brady, the very person who has already endorsed Minnick. Their argument for this, such as it is, is that it would result in all three of the important offices (IDP Chair, Senate Minority Leader, and House Minority Leader) all being in the hands of people from Blaine County (no doubt a calculated attempt by Blaine Country to take over the State of Idaho). In short, the Good Ol' Boys are determined to have their way and their candidate for the House, no matter what.
So where was Walt Minnick during the last election cycle? Why didn't he run for Congress then? What is it, if anything, they actually have against Larry Grant except that he is from Fruitland rather than Boise? And why, if they are really interested in furthering the Democratic party in Idaho, rather than their own interests, would they risk splitting the Democratic vote when it is entirely unnecessary?
Larry Grant is a lawyer, he was General Counsel for Micron before he retired, he is a life-long Idaho Democrat, a hunter and fisherman, husband, father, intelligent, personable, hard-working, fair-minded, and dedicated to the people of Idaho. I cannot imagine a better candidate for Congress. He has done the work and demonstrated that it is possible for a Democrat to win in Idaho. I urge everyone to support him.
I was right about Huckabee. I knew the evangelicals would come through for him. Do you think the rest of the country will vote for a President who wants to bring the country back to Jesus?
I was wrong about Hillary. My apologies to the Democrats and Independents of Iowa who are apparently not as racist I thought they might be. But remember, it's not as easy to be a racist when you have to expose yourself in public as one. Will what happens in the privacy of the voting booth be the same? I sincerely hope so but I would not risk a lot of money on it. Congratulations to Obama. The fact that Hillary was third (one percentage point behind Edwards) I find inconsequential.
LKBIQ:
"He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
P.G. Wodehouse
But for whatever reason the Good Ol' Boys of Boise have decided to run another candidate, thus potentially splitting the Democratic vote. Their rationale for this seems to be their claim that Larry Grant ran a lackadasical campaign which, personally, I do not believe. In any case, their candidate, Walt Minnick, has lots of money and thus believes he can win against Sali (which is probably true as my useless cat, Katie, could probably win against Sali this time). So if it was simply a case of money the Good Ol' Boys could have contributed to Larry Grant and the Democratic party would be pretty much assured of a victory. So why Walt Minnick? He is well-known and widely liked but, more importantly, he is a Good Ol'Boy and Larry Grant is not.
But the plot thickens. The Chairman of the Idaho Democratic party, Richard Stallings, just resigned and has to be replaced. Apparently, taking a page out of the Republican game plan, John Foster, acting in conjunction with ex-Governor Cecil Andrus, simply wanted to appoint a new Chair for the Party, a procedure not in accordance with the rules. Not only did they want to improperly install a new Chairman, they wanted to install one who has already endorsed their candidate, Walt Minnick, which would appear to me to be somewhat unethical. Thwarted in this endeavor, there is now to be a meeting via telephone conference call tomorrow afternoon (Friday, January 4th), to vote on a new Chairman. There is one candidate, a lawyer, Keith Roark, who has promised to be entirely neutral in this procedure, and is widely respected. But undaunted, the Good Ol' Boys are going to nominate John Brady, the very person who has already endorsed Minnick. Their argument for this, such as it is, is that it would result in all three of the important offices (IDP Chair, Senate Minority Leader, and House Minority Leader) all being in the hands of people from Blaine County (no doubt a calculated attempt by Blaine Country to take over the State of Idaho). In short, the Good Ol' Boys are determined to have their way and their candidate for the House, no matter what.
So where was Walt Minnick during the last election cycle? Why didn't he run for Congress then? What is it, if anything, they actually have against Larry Grant except that he is from Fruitland rather than Boise? And why, if they are really interested in furthering the Democratic party in Idaho, rather than their own interests, would they risk splitting the Democratic vote when it is entirely unnecessary?
Larry Grant is a lawyer, he was General Counsel for Micron before he retired, he is a life-long Idaho Democrat, a hunter and fisherman, husband, father, intelligent, personable, hard-working, fair-minded, and dedicated to the people of Idaho. I cannot imagine a better candidate for Congress. He has done the work and demonstrated that it is possible for a Democrat to win in Idaho. I urge everyone to support him.
I was right about Huckabee. I knew the evangelicals would come through for him. Do you think the rest of the country will vote for a President who wants to bring the country back to Jesus?
I was wrong about Hillary. My apologies to the Democrats and Independents of Iowa who are apparently not as racist I thought they might be. But remember, it's not as easy to be a racist when you have to expose yourself in public as one. Will what happens in the privacy of the voting booth be the same? I sincerely hope so but I would not risk a lot of money on it. Congratulations to Obama. The fact that Hillary was third (one percentage point behind Edwards) I find inconsequential.
LKBIQ:
"He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
P.G. Wodehouse
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Guest blogger- my son Julian-Iowa Predictions
I have already made my predictions for the Democratic caucus in Iowa. So tonight Morialekafa has a guest blogger who is more informed and much more of a political junkie - Julian Langness - who wants to offer his predictions.
Hi, for any of you who read my dad’s blog who don’t know me, I’m his son, Julian. I’m 22 and I go to the University of Washington. I’m a creative writing major but I am hoping to go to law school after I graduate. I’m also a total political nerd, and lacking my own blog or outlet for my predictions on the presidential race, my dad has been nice enough to let me use his for tonight.
So, first of all, in June I predicted that the general election would end up being between Barack Obama and Wesley Clark against Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (Clark and Huckabee as Vice-Presidents I mean). I’m still reasonably confident in that, although I don’t think there’s any chance that Huckabee and Romney would pair up now that they have become such heated opponents and begun to attack each other so much. So yeah, I think if Romney wins he’ll probably still pick some evangelical southerner. Someone like Mark Sanford (Gov- South Carolina), or even Fred Thompson maybe.
But yeah, the main thing I wanted to talk about was the Iowa Caucuses tomorrow. I think that these primary’s are probably the most interesting in a very long time, probably in my dad’s whole lifetime even. Cause they didn’t even have primaries till what? Like forty or fifty years ago? And apparently this is the first time since 1952 where there wasn’t an incumbent president or vice president in them. So its pretty incredible just because of that. And then of course there’s also the fact that there’s a woman, and a black guy, etc. But mostly I think they are so interesting this time around because there are literally 8 or 9 candidates who could potentially end up being the next president going into Iowa.
I don’t know how much Iowa is going to narrow it down though. The Dem side is looking totally wide open, and the G.O.P. side is somewhat clearer for tomorrow, but in the long term its also pretty wide open. But anyway, I think the key influence on how they turn out tomorrow night is going to be attendance. I don’t remember the exact estimates, but I think that some people were saying there could be anywhere from 120,000 to 170,000 on the Democratic side and maybe only 50,000 to 90,000 on the republican. Those kind of numbers would be a good indicator that dems should do good in 08 too, but yeah, they also will have a huge impact on who wins tomorrow. For the democrats, the more people who caucus the better Obama will do. Because he has he most support among independents and crossover republicans. And then for the republicans, the more people who come the better Huckabee does. I think if you took all the republicans from Iowa who voted for Bush in 04 and had them all vote on a nominee, Huckabee would probably get around 40%, however, out of the three million people in Iowa, a pretty infinitesimal number are going to be caucusing. So yeah, if not that many people come out on the Republican side we could see some big surprises. I think that if that is the case Romney will pull a pretty wide upset, because he has so much money and such a good organization. Huckabee is way more popular, but he has little official organization outside of the homeschooling community and churches, and little to no money. And then the other person who benefits a lot if there’s a low turnout is Ron Paul. Because he has a core number of supporters who I think will come out for him no matter what. Some people on television have been talking about the impact it could have if Ron Paul gets fourth or even third. I think that that could very well be the case, as you’ll see below. I also think the suggestion going around that McCain will get a strong second is ridiculous. I think it is kind of just wishful thinking for the media, who have always loved McCain. Republicans do not like John McCain, its that simple. A lot of them disliked him in 2000, and they hate him now because of McCain-Feingold (which is understandable- I don’t support McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform myself…) and because of the illegal immigrant amnesty issue. I also think Thompson will do better than anticipated, because he has basically thrown everything he has left at doing good in Iowa, and I think this will hurt Huckabee. So yeah, here are my predictions-
Republican Prediction One -
(this is my bold, ballsy prediction, like my 70-1 bet that will make me look like a genius when it (hopefully) comes to fruition. It is also the one that represents what I think will happen if there is an especially low turnout for the republican side).
1) Mitt Romney- 26%
2) Ron Paul- 21%
3) Mike Huckabee- 20%
4) Fred Thompson- 14%
5) John McCain- 12%
6) Rudy Giuliani- 5%
7) Duncan Hunter- >1%
8) Alan Keyes >1%
Republican Prediction Two-
(this is my more reasonable estimate)
1) Mitt Romney- 30%
2) Mike Huckabee-29%
3) Ron Paul- 16%
4) Fred Thompson- 11%
5) John McCain- 9%
6) Rudy Giuliani- 4%
7) Duncan Hunter- >1%
8) Alan Keyes >1%
Democrat Prediction-
(I’m goin pretty even on this one, I think it is going to be pretty close among the top three, and then a big drop-off from there)
1) Barack Obama- 31%
2) Hilary Clinton- 30%
3) John Edwards- 28%
4) Richardson- 3%
5) Kucinich-2-3%
6) Biden 2-3%
7) Dodd 2-3%
8 Gravel >1%
Hi, for any of you who read my dad’s blog who don’t know me, I’m his son, Julian. I’m 22 and I go to the University of Washington. I’m a creative writing major but I am hoping to go to law school after I graduate. I’m also a total political nerd, and lacking my own blog or outlet for my predictions on the presidential race, my dad has been nice enough to let me use his for tonight.
So, first of all, in June I predicted that the general election would end up being between Barack Obama and Wesley Clark against Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (Clark and Huckabee as Vice-Presidents I mean). I’m still reasonably confident in that, although I don’t think there’s any chance that Huckabee and Romney would pair up now that they have become such heated opponents and begun to attack each other so much. So yeah, I think if Romney wins he’ll probably still pick some evangelical southerner. Someone like Mark Sanford (Gov- South Carolina), or even Fred Thompson maybe.
But yeah, the main thing I wanted to talk about was the Iowa Caucuses tomorrow. I think that these primary’s are probably the most interesting in a very long time, probably in my dad’s whole lifetime even. Cause they didn’t even have primaries till what? Like forty or fifty years ago? And apparently this is the first time since 1952 where there wasn’t an incumbent president or vice president in them. So its pretty incredible just because of that. And then of course there’s also the fact that there’s a woman, and a black guy, etc. But mostly I think they are so interesting this time around because there are literally 8 or 9 candidates who could potentially end up being the next president going into Iowa.
I don’t know how much Iowa is going to narrow it down though. The Dem side is looking totally wide open, and the G.O.P. side is somewhat clearer for tomorrow, but in the long term its also pretty wide open. But anyway, I think the key influence on how they turn out tomorrow night is going to be attendance. I don’t remember the exact estimates, but I think that some people were saying there could be anywhere from 120,000 to 170,000 on the Democratic side and maybe only 50,000 to 90,000 on the republican. Those kind of numbers would be a good indicator that dems should do good in 08 too, but yeah, they also will have a huge impact on who wins tomorrow. For the democrats, the more people who caucus the better Obama will do. Because he has he most support among independents and crossover republicans. And then for the republicans, the more people who come the better Huckabee does. I think if you took all the republicans from Iowa who voted for Bush in 04 and had them all vote on a nominee, Huckabee would probably get around 40%, however, out of the three million people in Iowa, a pretty infinitesimal number are going to be caucusing. So yeah, if not that many people come out on the Republican side we could see some big surprises. I think that if that is the case Romney will pull a pretty wide upset, because he has so much money and such a good organization. Huckabee is way more popular, but he has little official organization outside of the homeschooling community and churches, and little to no money. And then the other person who benefits a lot if there’s a low turnout is Ron Paul. Because he has a core number of supporters who I think will come out for him no matter what. Some people on television have been talking about the impact it could have if Ron Paul gets fourth or even third. I think that that could very well be the case, as you’ll see below. I also think the suggestion going around that McCain will get a strong second is ridiculous. I think it is kind of just wishful thinking for the media, who have always loved McCain. Republicans do not like John McCain, its that simple. A lot of them disliked him in 2000, and they hate him now because of McCain-Feingold (which is understandable- I don’t support McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform myself…) and because of the illegal immigrant amnesty issue. I also think Thompson will do better than anticipated, because he has basically thrown everything he has left at doing good in Iowa, and I think this will hurt Huckabee. So yeah, here are my predictions-
Republican Prediction One -
(this is my bold, ballsy prediction, like my 70-1 bet that will make me look like a genius when it (hopefully) comes to fruition. It is also the one that represents what I think will happen if there is an especially low turnout for the republican side).
1) Mitt Romney- 26%
2) Ron Paul- 21%
3) Mike Huckabee- 20%
4) Fred Thompson- 14%
5) John McCain- 12%
6) Rudy Giuliani- 5%
7) Duncan Hunter- >1%
8) Alan Keyes >1%
Republican Prediction Two-
(this is my more reasonable estimate)
1) Mitt Romney- 30%
2) Mike Huckabee-29%
3) Ron Paul- 16%
4) Fred Thompson- 11%
5) John McCain- 9%
6) Rudy Giuliani- 4%
7) Duncan Hunter- >1%
8) Alan Keyes >1%
Democrat Prediction-
(I’m goin pretty even on this one, I think it is going to be pretty close among the top three, and then a big drop-off from there)
1) Barack Obama- 31%
2) Hilary Clinton- 30%
3) John Edwards- 28%
4) Richardson- 3%
5) Kucinich-2-3%
6) Biden 2-3%
7) Dodd 2-3%
8 Gravel >1%
Monday, December 31, 2007
Think of the starving
Steals a car, tire blows, steals
another, engine fire, steals
third, police spikes.
Not his day.
When I was a little boy and refused to eat stuff I didn't like, like spinach, broccoli, egg yokes, oatmeal, and such, my mother used to say, "think of the starving Chinese," or, somewhat later, "think of the starving Armenians." It never occurred to me that more than seventy years later I would be thinking of the starving Americans. I'm sure that in the 1930's there were starving Americans, too, but I didn't know anything about them, being a child and living in a remote part of the world (Wallace, Idaho). But, then, I didn't know that America was the richest nation on earth and still tolerated starving citizens, as it continues to do to the present day. Now I know about it, and I'm not happy about it. It's disgraceful, unconscionable, despicable, unnecessary, and immoral. It's the American way, at least the American way under the control of the Brafia. What was it Bush claimed to be, oh, yeah, a compassionate conservative. Hahahahaha, I guess he put one over on us.
Well, surprise! It turns out that both John McCain and Barak Obama have ties to corporate America. Hillary's ties to corporate America are right out in the open, McCain's and Obama's have been off limits until now. One might admire Hillary for at least not being hypocritical about it. Of course anyone who believes all of the candidates do not have such ties is probably pretty naive (Edwards is supported by the lawyers, I guess technically not a corporation. Kucinich is probably the only really clean one of the bunch). I read that Edwards is "coming on" in Iowa. That seems to mean he's gained two or three percentage points. Big deal. By friday morning we should know what happens in Iowa. Thank god, at least that much will be over.
I still don't have my computer! They said it would be maybe a week. It's now been more than a week. Everyone lies these days. They take their cues from Bush/Cheney who have apparently made lying acceptable. On my wife's desk there is a book entitled Moral Politics by George Lakoff. I haven't read this book. I think Moral Politics is probably the world's most blatant oxymoron. What do I know? Lakoff is supposedly godlike when it comes to language. Will I read this book? Probably not, I do not believe politics and morality are compatible. Besides, it will be too complicated for my aging brain to contemplate. One of the things I notice about aging is that you have less and less tolerance for ambiguity. I still believe right is right and wrong is wrong. And I can tell you with the assurance of my many years that Bush/Cheney and their gang of thugs are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Murdeously, hatefully, viciously, unconscionably, greedily, rapaciously, and unforgivingly wrong. They make me want to believe in hell, and rotting there, but unfortunately I just believe in justice and think they must be held accountable.
Although I have struggled for years with the problem, I still do not understand the existence of evil. I know that it exists. But I don't know why. Nor do I know what can be done about it (apparently nothing). There is evil and there is super-evil, this latter seems to be a characteristic of the late 20th and 21st centuries. I think super-evil probably began during the Second World War, but that is a long and complicated story.
I sincerely hope that you all will have a better 2008. So Happy New Year!!!
LKBIQ:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell
another, engine fire, steals
third, police spikes.
Not his day.
When I was a little boy and refused to eat stuff I didn't like, like spinach, broccoli, egg yokes, oatmeal, and such, my mother used to say, "think of the starving Chinese," or, somewhat later, "think of the starving Armenians." It never occurred to me that more than seventy years later I would be thinking of the starving Americans. I'm sure that in the 1930's there were starving Americans, too, but I didn't know anything about them, being a child and living in a remote part of the world (Wallace, Idaho). But, then, I didn't know that America was the richest nation on earth and still tolerated starving citizens, as it continues to do to the present day. Now I know about it, and I'm not happy about it. It's disgraceful, unconscionable, despicable, unnecessary, and immoral. It's the American way, at least the American way under the control of the Brafia. What was it Bush claimed to be, oh, yeah, a compassionate conservative. Hahahahaha, I guess he put one over on us.
Well, surprise! It turns out that both John McCain and Barak Obama have ties to corporate America. Hillary's ties to corporate America are right out in the open, McCain's and Obama's have been off limits until now. One might admire Hillary for at least not being hypocritical about it. Of course anyone who believes all of the candidates do not have such ties is probably pretty naive (Edwards is supported by the lawyers, I guess technically not a corporation. Kucinich is probably the only really clean one of the bunch). I read that Edwards is "coming on" in Iowa. That seems to mean he's gained two or three percentage points. Big deal. By friday morning we should know what happens in Iowa. Thank god, at least that much will be over.
I still don't have my computer! They said it would be maybe a week. It's now been more than a week. Everyone lies these days. They take their cues from Bush/Cheney who have apparently made lying acceptable. On my wife's desk there is a book entitled Moral Politics by George Lakoff. I haven't read this book. I think Moral Politics is probably the world's most blatant oxymoron. What do I know? Lakoff is supposedly godlike when it comes to language. Will I read this book? Probably not, I do not believe politics and morality are compatible. Besides, it will be too complicated for my aging brain to contemplate. One of the things I notice about aging is that you have less and less tolerance for ambiguity. I still believe right is right and wrong is wrong. And I can tell you with the assurance of my many years that Bush/Cheney and their gang of thugs are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Murdeously, hatefully, viciously, unconscionably, greedily, rapaciously, and unforgivingly wrong. They make me want to believe in hell, and rotting there, but unfortunately I just believe in justice and think they must be held accountable.
Although I have struggled for years with the problem, I still do not understand the existence of evil. I know that it exists. But I don't know why. Nor do I know what can be done about it (apparently nothing). There is evil and there is super-evil, this latter seems to be a characteristic of the late 20th and 21st centuries. I think super-evil probably began during the Second World War, but that is a long and complicated story.
I sincerely hope that you all will have a better 2008. So Happy New Year!!!
LKBIQ:
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell
Sunday, December 30, 2007
End of the year
If there is anything I dislike more than Sundays it is the last day or two of the year. We are about to be treated to a review of all the disgusting developments and "news" items of the year 2007. I don't want to review all of this either sad or absurd detritus that washed up in the past year. It was bad enough the first time around. Furthermore, I'm not sure I look forward to the New Year with a great deal of optimism. More people will be losing their homes, more people will be without medical insurance, more people will die in Afghanistan and Iraq, our infrastructure will disintegrate a bit more, we will be fed more lies, and more and more women will pose claiming to have lost weight and be sexier than ever, while erections will be guaranteed, providing you don't have liver damage.
On the political front we will have to endure more pretending that we have a choice of candidates while the corporations continue to run everything behind the scenes. You can be certain we will have no chance to elect a Kucinich, and most probably not an Edwards or a Paul. We will probably have a choice between Hillary and Romney (two candidates guaranteed not to upset the status quo). All of the troops will not return home from either Iraq or Afghanistan, the huge international corporations will continue to haul in the big, big bucks, and, in fact, very little will change (even if Obama gets elected which I doubt will happen- he's black, you know, or at least part black - it only takes a touch of black blood to make you black). Hillary is a woman, of course, but she's a corporate woman and the next best thing to a Brafia (if not a Brafia). Bush/Cheney will continue to escape even any minimul accountability for their multiple war crimes and stomping all over the Constitution.
I know I sound terrible and my pessimism is unbearable. Convince me that I am wrong. Give me even a semblance of hope for this poor, lost nation. Hold me and tell me things are going to be okay. Where is my mother when I need her so? I feel like I am trapped in a culture of the absurd. In short, "Drop kick me Jesus, through the goal posts of life."
I just finished a fine book, When Nietszche Wept, by a Psychiarist at Stanford, Irvin Yolum (I think that's his right name). A very clever fictional account of an obsession and the beginnings of Psychoanalysis. I recommend it. However, I'm certain if Nietszche were alive at the moment he'd be weeping much more copiously.
I still don't have my computer back. I miss it. It's like a friend. At least it doesn't rip up the furniture or kill the birds like my other three more furry friends. Here at Sandhill we continue to have snow, cold, and ice. We look forward to the Iowa caucuses although I could not tell you why (I guess there is just nothing else to do this time of year). Be of good cheer (I dare you).
LKBIQ:
"Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. This is not the case."
John F. Kennedy
On the political front we will have to endure more pretending that we have a choice of candidates while the corporations continue to run everything behind the scenes. You can be certain we will have no chance to elect a Kucinich, and most probably not an Edwards or a Paul. We will probably have a choice between Hillary and Romney (two candidates guaranteed not to upset the status quo). All of the troops will not return home from either Iraq or Afghanistan, the huge international corporations will continue to haul in the big, big bucks, and, in fact, very little will change (even if Obama gets elected which I doubt will happen- he's black, you know, or at least part black - it only takes a touch of black blood to make you black). Hillary is a woman, of course, but she's a corporate woman and the next best thing to a Brafia (if not a Brafia). Bush/Cheney will continue to escape even any minimul accountability for their multiple war crimes and stomping all over the Constitution.
I know I sound terrible and my pessimism is unbearable. Convince me that I am wrong. Give me even a semblance of hope for this poor, lost nation. Hold me and tell me things are going to be okay. Where is my mother when I need her so? I feel like I am trapped in a culture of the absurd. In short, "Drop kick me Jesus, through the goal posts of life."
I just finished a fine book, When Nietszche Wept, by a Psychiarist at Stanford, Irvin Yolum (I think that's his right name). A very clever fictional account of an obsession and the beginnings of Psychoanalysis. I recommend it. However, I'm certain if Nietszche were alive at the moment he'd be weeping much more copiously.
I still don't have my computer back. I miss it. It's like a friend. At least it doesn't rip up the furniture or kill the birds like my other three more furry friends. Here at Sandhill we continue to have snow, cold, and ice. We look forward to the Iowa caucuses although I could not tell you why (I guess there is just nothing else to do this time of year). Be of good cheer (I dare you).
LKBIQ:
"Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. This is not the case."
John F. Kennedy
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Intelligent Design?
Angry because of dog in the shower
with them, woman is arrested
for assaulting lover.
These fundamentalists do not give up easily. Now there is a move afoot in Texas to sneak intelligent design into the science curriculum under the guise of questioning what is wrong with the theory of evolution. These are the same people who insist on believing the earth is only 6000 years old, even though geologists have known and been satisfied with the facts for much more than a hundred years.
The only excuse for these people is what is apparently their incredible ignorance of anything apart from the bible. How anyone with even a rudimentary idea of human history, from the hordes of Genghis Khan through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the discovery and colonialization of Asia, Africa, Siberia, Australia, and the Americas, could see anything of intelligence therein totally escapes me. Human history is nothing but one long account of murder, arson, plunder, torture, and rape. How can this dismal record be perceived as intelligent? As I have said several times before, if there was such a thing as intelligent design there would be no human beings. I believe this to be every bit as true as the theory of gravity (which we know less about than we do about evolution). The only way one could think otherwise would be to believe there is an exceptionally malicious intelligent being who designed a murderous species just for his/her amusement, sort of a global version of Roman entertainment only without the thumbs up. Please, can't we have done with this utter nonsense and approach the world and our place in it with at least some degree of honest curiosity? The fact that one of the leading candidates to be President of our country does not believe in evolution I find terrifying. I am terrified enough of the present occupant of that position who thinks intelligent design should be taught along with evolution (but, then, we all know where he was when brains were passed out). We are, hopefully, beginning to understand the dangers of mixing religion and politics, at least I hope we are. I, for one, do not want a President who believes the earth was created in six days, that people were contemporaneous with dinosaurs, That you must have a beard or wear a certain kind of hat, or that underwear is sacred. If there are people who truly believe these kinds of things, let them stay out of politics and high office.
Pakistan is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Iraq is a mess. We are now virtually without allies, a debtor nation, and an international pariah. God bless the King!
LKBIQ:
If all human misery
resulting from greed and war
could be distilled into a single drop
and cast into the oceans
it would poison all mankind
for eternity -- and more.
with them, woman is arrested
for assaulting lover.
These fundamentalists do not give up easily. Now there is a move afoot in Texas to sneak intelligent design into the science curriculum under the guise of questioning what is wrong with the theory of evolution. These are the same people who insist on believing the earth is only 6000 years old, even though geologists have known and been satisfied with the facts for much more than a hundred years.
The only excuse for these people is what is apparently their incredible ignorance of anything apart from the bible. How anyone with even a rudimentary idea of human history, from the hordes of Genghis Khan through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the discovery and colonialization of Asia, Africa, Siberia, Australia, and the Americas, could see anything of intelligence therein totally escapes me. Human history is nothing but one long account of murder, arson, plunder, torture, and rape. How can this dismal record be perceived as intelligent? As I have said several times before, if there was such a thing as intelligent design there would be no human beings. I believe this to be every bit as true as the theory of gravity (which we know less about than we do about evolution). The only way one could think otherwise would be to believe there is an exceptionally malicious intelligent being who designed a murderous species just for his/her amusement, sort of a global version of Roman entertainment only without the thumbs up. Please, can't we have done with this utter nonsense and approach the world and our place in it with at least some degree of honest curiosity? The fact that one of the leading candidates to be President of our country does not believe in evolution I find terrifying. I am terrified enough of the present occupant of that position who thinks intelligent design should be taught along with evolution (but, then, we all know where he was when brains were passed out). We are, hopefully, beginning to understand the dangers of mixing religion and politics, at least I hope we are. I, for one, do not want a President who believes the earth was created in six days, that people were contemporaneous with dinosaurs, That you must have a beard or wear a certain kind of hat, or that underwear is sacred. If there are people who truly believe these kinds of things, let them stay out of politics and high office.
Pakistan is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Iraq is a mess. We are now virtually without allies, a debtor nation, and an international pariah. God bless the King!
LKBIQ:
If all human misery
resulting from greed and war
could be distilled into a single drop
and cast into the oceans
it would poison all mankind
for eternity -- and more.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Who done it?
Arrested for domestic violence
woman wipes her nose on
policeman's shirt.
Ah, Bubblehead, always nice to hear from you. I guess you are right, Pakistanis are probably too incompetent to provide security (even though Musharif had agreed to be resonsible for it). And no doubt Bhutto stood up in her SUV out of sheer stupidity, not thinking she might have been relatively secure. And speaking of the underground Brafia headquarters, has anyone ever located Cheney's secret hideaway or does he just move from one to another at random?
So who done it? I have seen several explanations already. Some think Musharif was responsible. Some think al Quaida is responsible. First she was shot and then bombed, someone else suggested a sniper. Now we're told she didn't die from gunshots or shrapnel but, rather, from a broken skull. One essay today placed the blame on Bush, another claimed there were all kinds of people who might have wanted to kill her. Still another claimed there was no autopsy (so how would we know what actually killed her). The Taliban has also been mentioned. I'm surprised the Brafia hasn't suggested it was all Bill Clinton's fault. Huckabee may come up with the answer if he can manage to locate Pakistan. Ron Paul says we should leave Pakistan alone and mind our own business. Giuliani wants more troops. McCain says he knows exactly what to do (this seemed to involve immediately getting on the phone and calling Musharif). In short, it's an incredible mess. One essay suggested that like JFK we will never know (this seems like a good bet).
The Democratic candidates, at least Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are neck and neck in Iowa, Hillary and Obama are neck and neck in New Hampshire but the polls are all meaningless and no one really knows anything about what will happen. It's more exciting than the Kentucky Derby. Too bad the focus is on the race rather than on the prize. But, then, does it really matter who wins the prize? If any of these candidates win so will the medical insurance companies and the rest of big, big, business (all due respects to Edwards whose eyes are bigger than his stomach).
I haven't heard lately how Wexler's attempt to impeach Cheney are coming along. The MSM, for some reason, don't seem interested (they're too busy losing circulation). Can anyone think of anything the Brafia has done for the citizens of what used to be this great nation? Does anyone believe Cheney (and Bush) don't deserve to be impeached? Does anyone believe the Iraq "war" should end as soon as possible? Does anyone believe our children should have health insurance? Does anyone believe our troops should come home? Well, I've got news for you, the Brafia doesn't give a damn what you think.
LKBIQ:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Justice Hugo Black
woman wipes her nose on
policeman's shirt.
Ah, Bubblehead, always nice to hear from you. I guess you are right, Pakistanis are probably too incompetent to provide security (even though Musharif had agreed to be resonsible for it). And no doubt Bhutto stood up in her SUV out of sheer stupidity, not thinking she might have been relatively secure. And speaking of the underground Brafia headquarters, has anyone ever located Cheney's secret hideaway or does he just move from one to another at random?
So who done it? I have seen several explanations already. Some think Musharif was responsible. Some think al Quaida is responsible. First she was shot and then bombed, someone else suggested a sniper. Now we're told she didn't die from gunshots or shrapnel but, rather, from a broken skull. One essay today placed the blame on Bush, another claimed there were all kinds of people who might have wanted to kill her. Still another claimed there was no autopsy (so how would we know what actually killed her). The Taliban has also been mentioned. I'm surprised the Brafia hasn't suggested it was all Bill Clinton's fault. Huckabee may come up with the answer if he can manage to locate Pakistan. Ron Paul says we should leave Pakistan alone and mind our own business. Giuliani wants more troops. McCain says he knows exactly what to do (this seemed to involve immediately getting on the phone and calling Musharif). In short, it's an incredible mess. One essay suggested that like JFK we will never know (this seems like a good bet).
The Democratic candidates, at least Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are neck and neck in Iowa, Hillary and Obama are neck and neck in New Hampshire but the polls are all meaningless and no one really knows anything about what will happen. It's more exciting than the Kentucky Derby. Too bad the focus is on the race rather than on the prize. But, then, does it really matter who wins the prize? If any of these candidates win so will the medical insurance companies and the rest of big, big, business (all due respects to Edwards whose eyes are bigger than his stomach).
I haven't heard lately how Wexler's attempt to impeach Cheney are coming along. The MSM, for some reason, don't seem interested (they're too busy losing circulation). Can anyone think of anything the Brafia has done for the citizens of what used to be this great nation? Does anyone believe Cheney (and Bush) don't deserve to be impeached? Does anyone believe the Iraq "war" should end as soon as possible? Does anyone believe our children should have health insurance? Does anyone believe our troops should come home? Well, I've got news for you, the Brafia doesn't give a damn what you think.
LKBIQ:
"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
Justice Hugo Black
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bhutto killed
It could not have come as much of a surprise that Bhutto was assassinated. She had feared for her life for a long time and had asked for tight security that was promised her by Musharif. So where was it? How could it have happened that a young man with an automatic pistol and a bomb could get so close to her? Obviously there was a breakdown in security. But why? If you ask yourself who would gain from her death it is obvious that Musharif stood to gain. But does that make him guilty? He, of course, blames terrorists (everyone blames terrorists nowadays for everything). What would the terrorists have gained except, perhaps, chaos? In any case she is no longer a player in Pakistan politics and apparently there is no one to take her place. Thus Pakistan is in an even more precarious situation than before this unfortunate event. What I find the most interesting about this development is that Bush phoned Musharif and insisted that Pakistan go ahead with their elections, scheduled in just a few days. This seems to me strange advice unless Bush thinks his buddy Musharif will win and his dictatorship will continue (so much for Bush's interest in democracy). Dodd, with his many years of experience, says the elections should be postponed until Bhutto's party can regroup. If this does not happen there would only be one other candidate to run against Musharif and he is not regarded as having much chance (of course the election will be "fixed" in any case). If they were to wait there would be at least a chance for a democratic election.
Who among our Presidential candidates stands to benefit from Bhutto's death? I guess it is obvious that those with the most experience would be the ones. This means Hillary and McCain, because Dodd, Biden, and the others have already been dismissed. Richardson came out with the most incredibly stupid idea of all, insisting that Musharif resign and leave the country truly in chaos (with all those nuclear warheads up for grabs). How Osama bin Laden must be loving this! Not only has he managed to get Bush to do everything he wanted, and got everyone flying to remove their shoes and stop taking their toothpaste, he's now created an even more safe haven for himself in Pakistan (if, indeed, that's where he really is). What would Osama have done without Bush? Not much, I suspect.
I guess Bush/Cheney could try to reinstate a draft, raise a military force of two or three million, put the country on an all-out war footing, and invade Afghanistan. That seems unlikely at the moment and would probably fail anyway with Bush at the helm. So just what in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? Everyone knows we can't possibly "win," and it's a completely lost cause unless the goal is to promote endless war (which, for Bush/Cheney and their Brafia, it is).
The only "war" they seem to be winning is the war on the middle class. The war on drugs has been completely lost, and the war on poverty never even got off the ground. We lost the war in Korea, lost the war in Vietnam, are losing big-time in Iraq and Afghanistan, lost in Lebanon, and will lose for certain if we foolishly try to take on Iran. But who cares if we're losing everywhere, the military/industrial/political complex is making money hand over fist. It's a great time to be alive, if you're a CEO or a national politician. So let's hear it for war!
LKBIQ:
"You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame: how could you become new, if you had not first become ashes?
Thus Spake Zarathustra
Who among our Presidential candidates stands to benefit from Bhutto's death? I guess it is obvious that those with the most experience would be the ones. This means Hillary and McCain, because Dodd, Biden, and the others have already been dismissed. Richardson came out with the most incredibly stupid idea of all, insisting that Musharif resign and leave the country truly in chaos (with all those nuclear warheads up for grabs). How Osama bin Laden must be loving this! Not only has he managed to get Bush to do everything he wanted, and got everyone flying to remove their shoes and stop taking their toothpaste, he's now created an even more safe haven for himself in Pakistan (if, indeed, that's where he really is). What would Osama have done without Bush? Not much, I suspect.
I guess Bush/Cheney could try to reinstate a draft, raise a military force of two or three million, put the country on an all-out war footing, and invade Afghanistan. That seems unlikely at the moment and would probably fail anyway with Bush at the helm. So just what in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? Everyone knows we can't possibly "win," and it's a completely lost cause unless the goal is to promote endless war (which, for Bush/Cheney and their Brafia, it is).
The only "war" they seem to be winning is the war on the middle class. The war on drugs has been completely lost, and the war on poverty never even got off the ground. We lost the war in Korea, lost the war in Vietnam, are losing big-time in Iraq and Afghanistan, lost in Lebanon, and will lose for certain if we foolishly try to take on Iran. But who cares if we're losing everywhere, the military/industrial/political complex is making money hand over fist. It's a great time to be alive, if you're a CEO or a national politician. So let's hear it for war!
LKBIQ:
"You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame: how could you become new, if you had not first become ashes?
Thus Spake Zarathustra
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Iowa nonsense
Shot dead for dropping his pants
and attacking cars on the freeway
cops say drugs may have been involved.
Someone suggested today that the only real purpose of the Iowa caucus is to bring attention to the state, the funcional equivalent of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. I think that must be the case. Certainly the few Bible Belters that participate in the selection of delegats that eventually decide on an Iowa candidate for President do not speak for me. That what is about to happen in Iowa has any genuine significance with respect to who eventually becomes President I believe is doubtful in the extreme. And why what happens in Iowa should influence what happens in New Hampshire and Florida seems to me even more far-fetched. The Iowa polls are pretty meaningless and hardly a basis from which to predict. Even so, I will go out on a limb (just to be in the game) and predict that Hillary will win for the Democrats in Iowa and Huckabee will win for the Republicans. I won't bother to explain my rationale for
these picks but this is what I expect to happen (as you know, I am often wrong. I would like to be wrong about this).
I learned an interesting thing today. Pigs cannot be eaten in certain areas of the world because they have cleft hooves (feet) but are not ruminants. Deer can be eaten even though they have cleft hooves because they are also ruminants. Deer have now taken to lying down in our backyard and chewing their cuds (they apparently have four stomachs like cattle). You see, you do learn something new every day. Of course there is no guarantee that what you learn is necessarily true.
Some kind of evil and vicious alien captured my computer which is now in the hands of the Geek Squad (and they don't work for peanuts). I am writing this on my wife's laptop that I find awkward. I'm not certain if my fingers are too big or the keys are too little. I have no idea how this disaster came about - none whatever.
Is Kucinich even on the ballot in Iowa? I mean could he be picked by the caucus? During the last election when we caucused here in Bonners Ferry Kucinich actually was picked as one of the two from here (the other was Kerry, of course). The MSM and the powers that be behind them must be terrified of Kucinich, given the lengths to which they have gone to ignore and/or denigrate him. I wonder how many votes he could get if given a fair chance? Why is it that Ron Paul gets so much support when he has no more chance than Kucinich? American voters certainly perform in devious ways; they elected Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Things can't get much stranger than that (unless, of course, they decide to elect Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee).
LKBIQ:
"There is an inevitable divergence, attributable to the imperfections of the human mind, between the world as it is and the world as men perceive it."
James William Fulbright
and attacking cars on the freeway
cops say drugs may have been involved.
Someone suggested today that the only real purpose of the Iowa caucus is to bring attention to the state, the funcional equivalent of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. I think that must be the case. Certainly the few Bible Belters that participate in the selection of delegats that eventually decide on an Iowa candidate for President do not speak for me. That what is about to happen in Iowa has any genuine significance with respect to who eventually becomes President I believe is doubtful in the extreme. And why what happens in Iowa should influence what happens in New Hampshire and Florida seems to me even more far-fetched. The Iowa polls are pretty meaningless and hardly a basis from which to predict. Even so, I will go out on a limb (just to be in the game) and predict that Hillary will win for the Democrats in Iowa and Huckabee will win for the Republicans. I won't bother to explain my rationale for
these picks but this is what I expect to happen (as you know, I am often wrong. I would like to be wrong about this).
I learned an interesting thing today. Pigs cannot be eaten in certain areas of the world because they have cleft hooves (feet) but are not ruminants. Deer can be eaten even though they have cleft hooves because they are also ruminants. Deer have now taken to lying down in our backyard and chewing their cuds (they apparently have four stomachs like cattle). You see, you do learn something new every day. Of course there is no guarantee that what you learn is necessarily true.
Some kind of evil and vicious alien captured my computer which is now in the hands of the Geek Squad (and they don't work for peanuts). I am writing this on my wife's laptop that I find awkward. I'm not certain if my fingers are too big or the keys are too little. I have no idea how this disaster came about - none whatever.
Is Kucinich even on the ballot in Iowa? I mean could he be picked by the caucus? During the last election when we caucused here in Bonners Ferry Kucinich actually was picked as one of the two from here (the other was Kerry, of course). The MSM and the powers that be behind them must be terrified of Kucinich, given the lengths to which they have gone to ignore and/or denigrate him. I wonder how many votes he could get if given a fair chance? Why is it that Ron Paul gets so much support when he has no more chance than Kucinich? American voters certainly perform in devious ways; they elected Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Things can't get much stranger than that (unless, of course, they decide to elect Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee).
LKBIQ:
"There is an inevitable divergence, attributable to the imperfections of the human mind, between the world as it is and the world as men perceive it."
James William Fulbright
Monday, December 24, 2007
Believe it or not
Believe it or not there are still some people who support Bush/Cheney and the Brafia. After seven years of incessant lying, violations of the Constitution, flagrant war crimes such as torture and profiteering, the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, dropping illegal bombs, virtually bankrupting the nation, and scandals as far as the eye can see, some 28% or so of Americans still think Bush/Cheney are okay. I find this impossible to understand, short of believing that 28% must be either totally uninformed or quite mad. I guess these people must be those who get their news exclusively from Fox (the rest of the MSM aren't much better) and listen only to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and the rest of the hatemongers. I realize that this is America and people are entitled to free speech and all that, but that doesn't mean you have to believe everything you hear, especially from such obviously prejudiced sources. One only has to hear the sound of Limbaugh''s voice to know he is lying, and the same is true of O'Reilly. And Coulter is so far gone off the deep end, so to speak, it is obvious she is just making things up to outrage and make big bucks. These miserable no-talents are doing the equivalent of falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre and not being held accountable for it. Of course nowadays, under the Brafia empire, there is no such thing as accountability.
Does anyone believe that the White House was not involved in the destruction of the torture tapes? The politicization of the Justice Department? The doings at Abu Ghraib? The Israeli attack on Lebanon? The Abramhof scandal? The Plame scandal? The theft of elections? I do not know a single person who thinks they are innocent of these things. Of course I don't know any members of the Brafia so my horizons are limited. But even though a majority of Americans now know how bad Bush/Cheney have been, and even though there are increasing calls for impeachment, things just continue as if there are no problems at all. Bush/Cheney continue making their speeches, reporters listen but do not question, and the charade continues.
I have not yet decided who I will vote for, as I know I will not be given the choice to vote for Kucinich. But the first candidate who will announce publicly they will seriously attempt to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their war crimes will get my vote.
LKBIQ:
"What makes Western civilization worth saving is the freedom of the mind, now under heavy attack from the primitives...who have persisted among us. If we have not the courage to defend that faith, it won't matter much whether we are saved or not."
Elmer Davis
Does anyone believe that the White House was not involved in the destruction of the torture tapes? The politicization of the Justice Department? The doings at Abu Ghraib? The Israeli attack on Lebanon? The Abramhof scandal? The Plame scandal? The theft of elections? I do not know a single person who thinks they are innocent of these things. Of course I don't know any members of the Brafia so my horizons are limited. But even though a majority of Americans now know how bad Bush/Cheney have been, and even though there are increasing calls for impeachment, things just continue as if there are no problems at all. Bush/Cheney continue making their speeches, reporters listen but do not question, and the charade continues.
I have not yet decided who I will vote for, as I know I will not be given the choice to vote for Kucinich. But the first candidate who will announce publicly they will seriously attempt to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their war crimes will get my vote.
LKBIQ:
"What makes Western civilization worth saving is the freedom of the mind, now under heavy attack from the primitives...who have persisted among us. If we have not the courage to defend that faith, it won't matter much whether we are saved or not."
Elmer Davis
Saturday, December 22, 2007
On the warpath
First, some exciting news from Boundary County:
Local businessman Tom Hollingsworth, a Democrat, has announced his candidacy for an Idaho Congressional Seat, District One. Boundary Country has not had a representative in Boise for twenty years. Not only is it unusual for Boundary County to field a candidate, the fact that Hollingsworth is a Democrat makes it even more unusual. But not only is Tom a candidate, he's a much more than average candidate. He has been very active during his twenty year residency here, serving on many different committees and in different roles. He is currently Chairman of the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission and is known for his common sense and fairness. He will be a wonderful representative for North Idaho and I urge everyone to support him.
Linda Langness, an 18 year resident of Boundary County and a superb cook, has just started a new blog entitled, In Linda's Kitchen. If you are interested in food (and who is not) you should follow this blog: http://inlindaskitchen.blogspot.com/ A new restaurant is opening on the Eiffel Tower. They report the place will be accessible to all, with lunches starting at $108, and dinners at $216. I must be missing something.
The Lakota Indians, of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse fame, have announced they are seceding from the United States. This is an absolutely fascinating development. As you doubtless know, American Indian Tribes are supposedly Sovereign Nations. But if the Lakota are Sovereign wny do they have to secede? I assume this must be because they want international recognition for their sovereignty. They have approached Venezuela and Bolivia, among others, for recognition. If any country recognizes their sovereignty then presumably the United Nations would also. They have canceled all of their treaties with the U.S. as they say the U.S. has violated all of them. Remember, the Lakota cover parts of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Somewhere I saw where it suggested one could join them if one was prepared to give up their U.S. citizenship (personally, I would not like to live in the area). This is going to be interesting. Obviously the U.S. is not going to allow this to happen. And equally obviously the U.S. could make them completely miserable (more miserable, that is, than we have already made them). The U.S. could make it impossible for anyone to travel there without a passport, could keep people from going to the Indian Casinos, cut off supplies, and etc. I wonder what it is, specifically, the Lakota are going to demand. And will the U.S. negotiate at all, let alone in good faith. What if there is violence? Will the U.S. Military become involved, or just local police? Will Bush/Cheney send in their Blackguards (I mean Blackwater) as they did during Katrina? With their experience in killing and raping innocent people the Lakota should be a pushover for them. Maybe they'll just send in the Cavalry. General Custer was certainly successful in dealing with uppity Indians. Of course Wounded Knee showed them what's what (I have no idea what's what is anymore). Might I suggest that if the U.S. had been honest and honored all the treaties this would not have come about. Can you imagine that we are going to be fighting Indian wars in 2008? I was just informed that some tribe down by San Franciso has said if the Lakota can do it, so can they. It's all very interesting and shows what happens when you lie and refuse to honor your treaties and commitments. You will probably have noticed the MSM have said nothing about this, choosing to ignore it, I gather. I haven't even seen too much about it as yet on the internet. But stay tuned.
Thank god, there's only a few more days until the (probably useless) Iowa caucus. There is no use looking at the polls as they mean very little (especially in Iowa). So will it be Hillary or Obama or Edwards? Will it be Romney or Huckabee? Is it really going to make any difference? At this point I just want it to be over, I don't even care who wins (as I'm sure it won't be Kucinich, the only candidate worth voting for).
LKBIQ:
"The Constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens."
Wendell Willkie
Local businessman Tom Hollingsworth, a Democrat, has announced his candidacy for an Idaho Congressional Seat, District One. Boundary Country has not had a representative in Boise for twenty years. Not only is it unusual for Boundary County to field a candidate, the fact that Hollingsworth is a Democrat makes it even more unusual. But not only is Tom a candidate, he's a much more than average candidate. He has been very active during his twenty year residency here, serving on many different committees and in different roles. He is currently Chairman of the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission and is known for his common sense and fairness. He will be a wonderful representative for North Idaho and I urge everyone to support him.
Linda Langness, an 18 year resident of Boundary County and a superb cook, has just started a new blog entitled, In Linda's Kitchen. If you are interested in food (and who is not) you should follow this blog: http://inlindaskitchen.blogspot.com/ A new restaurant is opening on the Eiffel Tower. They report the place will be accessible to all, with lunches starting at $108, and dinners at $216. I must be missing something.
The Lakota Indians, of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse fame, have announced they are seceding from the United States. This is an absolutely fascinating development. As you doubtless know, American Indian Tribes are supposedly Sovereign Nations. But if the Lakota are Sovereign wny do they have to secede? I assume this must be because they want international recognition for their sovereignty. They have approached Venezuela and Bolivia, among others, for recognition. If any country recognizes their sovereignty then presumably the United Nations would also. They have canceled all of their treaties with the U.S. as they say the U.S. has violated all of them. Remember, the Lakota cover parts of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Somewhere I saw where it suggested one could join them if one was prepared to give up their U.S. citizenship (personally, I would not like to live in the area). This is going to be interesting. Obviously the U.S. is not going to allow this to happen. And equally obviously the U.S. could make them completely miserable (more miserable, that is, than we have already made them). The U.S. could make it impossible for anyone to travel there without a passport, could keep people from going to the Indian Casinos, cut off supplies, and etc. I wonder what it is, specifically, the Lakota are going to demand. And will the U.S. negotiate at all, let alone in good faith. What if there is violence? Will the U.S. Military become involved, or just local police? Will Bush/Cheney send in their Blackguards (I mean Blackwater) as they did during Katrina? With their experience in killing and raping innocent people the Lakota should be a pushover for them. Maybe they'll just send in the Cavalry. General Custer was certainly successful in dealing with uppity Indians. Of course Wounded Knee showed them what's what (I have no idea what's what is anymore). Might I suggest that if the U.S. had been honest and honored all the treaties this would not have come about. Can you imagine that we are going to be fighting Indian wars in 2008? I was just informed that some tribe down by San Franciso has said if the Lakota can do it, so can they. It's all very interesting and shows what happens when you lie and refuse to honor your treaties and commitments. You will probably have noticed the MSM have said nothing about this, choosing to ignore it, I gather. I haven't even seen too much about it as yet on the internet. But stay tuned.
Thank god, there's only a few more days until the (probably useless) Iowa caucus. There is no use looking at the polls as they mean very little (especially in Iowa). So will it be Hillary or Obama or Edwards? Will it be Romney or Huckabee? Is it really going to make any difference? At this point I just want it to be over, I don't even care who wins (as I'm sure it won't be Kucinich, the only candidate worth voting for).
LKBIQ:
"The Constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens."
Wendell Willkie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)