More nonsense

There is just no end to the nonsense that characterizes human behavior. Sometimes it is rather amusing but more often than not it’s just plain stupid. Take, for example, the recent detailed study of Barack Obama’s youthful drug use. It turns out that it was virtually non-existent. Interviews with those who went to school with him and knew him indicate clearly that at worst he seems to have dabbled with marijuana. He is described as a serious young man with no problems with drugs, focused on his studies, and so on. So…referring back to his book it is being suggested that he might have exaggerated his experiments with drugs in order to make it more interesting and increase sales. Perhaps he did. But not content with such speculation, and chagrined at not being able to characterize him as a drug-crazed teen-ager, they now want to say he is a liar! So now Barack’s image is torn between being a fine upstanding serious young man or a liar. Human beings are strange creatures indeed. One might wonder why they even bothered about his so-called drug use, given the fact that our current occupant in the White House was admittedly a drunkard and a cocaine user (he’s been forgiven). Obama won’t find any forgiveness for anything he might have done when the roviaters start in on him.

Another thing that strikes me as amusing, although I’m sure many people will take it very seriously, is a headline I saw somewhere on an article that said, “U.S. doesn’t see a need for a second Iraqi nuclear plant.” Get that? The U.S. doesn’t see the need. One might ask just what business is it of ours whether they want a second plant or not. France has dozens of them and other nations have many more than two. What if the Iranians see a need for it? Oh, yeah, their perceptions and needs don’t count. It’s just another problem with the “white man’s burden.” These people just don’t know what’s good for themselves. We do, of course. We seem to know what’s good for everybody on earth (except, apparently and sadly, ourselves).

As I write this the election returns are coming in. It seems that Obama is winning Nebraska, Washington, and Louisiana, all by very large margins. And while it’s true he got a huge percentage of the black vote, it’s also true that blacks do not make up a large part of the populations in Nebraska or Washington, so he clearly isn’t just winning because of the black vote. Clinton is virtually being shut out when it comes to winning states even though she does claim California, Arizona, and New York. If this continues it is going to be most embarrassing for the Clintons no matter how many delegates they have. Bill Clinton suggested that electing Obama would be a roll of the dice (electing anyone, including Hillary, will be a roll of the dice as no one knows what they will actually do if they get the power). What I say is: “come seven, come eleven, baby needs a new pair of shoes.”

Having seen how difficult it is to conduct a caucus with 150 people, I don’t see how in the world you could conduct one with 1000 or 8000 people. This was never a problem before because there were always so few voters involved. If the trend continues I think we’ll have to give up on the caucus system. The turnout continues to be completely unprecedented everywhere. There is no doubt, people want change,
and they want it bad.

LKBIQ:
"There are men in the world who derive as stern an exaltation from the proximity of disaster and ruin, as others from success."
Sir Winston Churchill

Preposterous!

The stuff that has been coming out of this Bush/Cheney White House is so completely, unbelievably, incredibly, fantastically, monumentally, stupidly, unprecedentally, unconscionably, ridiculously PREPOSTEROUS, I believe it has caused the entire American population to lose their senses. No one seems able to cope with a story so out of touch with reality it is becoming unrecognizable as such. The latest claim coming out of the White House is that waterboarding is legal and the President can authorize it again if need be. Waterboarding has been known since the Inquisition as torture. Some Japanese were actually executed because they waterboarded Americans during WW II. Everyone on earth knows it is torture and that it is illegal. So how did it become legal? This is where it becomes stranger than fiction. Bush, our sort-of President, took his personal lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, with him to the White House. He then managed to make him Attorney General. As Attorney General this obsequious peasant decided to do what Bush wanted and declared torture, including waterboarding, legal. He also told Bush that the Geneva Convention, banning torture and other things, was simply “quaint” and out-of-touch. Thus Gonzales and his Justice Department ignored International law as well as the law of the United States and told Bush that as President he had unlimited powers and could do as he wished. Bush/Cheney, sadistic monsters that they are, went wild with their new-found (but completely illegal) powers and starting torturing all around the globe. Now that they have been found out they claim that what they did was legal at the time (it isn’t legal again now). Why was it legal? Because Bush’s toadies in the Justice Department declared that it was. And now the argument coming from the current Attorney General is that because the Justice Department had said it was legal, the current Justice Department cannot investigate themselves for doing what they had said was legal. Dizzy yet? So far everyone seems to accept the idea that Gonzales and his henchmen could blissfully do away with all legal precedents just because they wanted to do so. This is a scheme so fantastic it defies science fiction, to say nothing of just plain old common sense. It is so far-fetched that the Bush/Cheney administration can’t even admit that it is/was torture, as that would land them in prison for war crimes. Hence they continue to claim that it isn’t torture (even though the world knows that it is). So far they are getting away with this obvious crime against humanity. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them eventually living in luxury in Paraguay or even Saudi Arabia. Indeed, at the rate this is currently playing out they may well be dead and gone. What is worse, this business over torture is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg of even more preposterous acts perpetrated by this administration, the collective enormity of them so great as to make the nine and a half trillion dollar U.S. debt almost a comprehensible figure.

John Conyer, who has the power to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney, but has resisted doing so, now claims he is on the brink of doing it. However, he has said that one must be careful because there would be blowback from the “corporate power structure.” In other words, he’s afraid of the corporations that are running things. I guess it couldn’t be much more blatant and obvious than that. The corporations don’t want Bush/Cheney impeached so our Congressmen are bowing and scraping and doing their bidding. So much for Congressional power. Congressman Wexler is supposedly bringing up his impeachment attempt next week. Let’s see if he gets any farther than Kucinich. With the exception of Wexler, Kucinich, and a few others we have a Congress staffed overwhelmingly by cowards with no interest whatsoever in the public well-being, justice, truth, honor and decency, or anything unrelated to their maintaining their cushy jobs pretending to be important and relevant. We should certainly show them the way out next November, along with the Brafia Senators.

Equally PREPOSTEROUS is Bush’s recent budget. He wants to increase the defense budget by 8% while cutting back on domestic programs like Medicaid. Our defense budget that is larger already than all the rest of the world combined, and already eats up more than half of our annual budge, needs to be increased? Bush/Cheney and the Pentagon are drinking something a lot more powerful than kool-aid, while chuckling over all those billions that just somehow got lost along the way. Remember we have a long way to go before we rest, and more and more wars to start to prove we’re the best. John McCain will lead the way, he knows what’s right and doesn’t care what we say. Iran’ll be next and then the rest, and we’ll all be happy in our polluted nest. Onward Christian soldiers! Save the heathens! Remember the Alamo! Get rich, sleep till noon, and screw ‘em all. We’re Amuricans, and don’t you forget it!

LKBIQ:
“There is a moment of difficulty and danger at which flattery and falsehood can no longer deceive, and simplicity itself can no longer be misled.”
Anonymous

Believing impossible things

Minneapolis man steals her
purse and cell phone, then
demands to suck her toes.

The latest feeble (but so far successful) attempt to keep Bush from being tried for his war crimes comes from our (apparently totally without principles) Attorney General. He has now said that as the (Bush appointed) Justice Department had said it (waterboarding) was legal at the time they did it, it can not now be investigated as criminal. I guess this is another example of Nixon’s claim that “if the President does it, it can’t be illegal.” What a concept! Let’s see, Bush could have his Justice Department toadies declare that robbing banks at gunpoint is legal, they could then rob all the banks, and they couldn’t be prosecuted because it was legal at the time. Actually, this isn’t far from what they have done, only they’ve done it on such a massive scale it is almost impossible to comprehend. They declared that pre-emptive “wars” were part of the new American foreign policy. They then started a pre-emptive “war” against Iraq. The only people who have benefited from this (war crime) are the massive corporations that have been looting our treasury, and are trying desperately to steal Iraqi oil. What a neat system (if you are an absolutely dishonest, heartless, sadistic, greedy monster with no respect whatsoever for either law or human life). Greed is good. It’s the American way. They want us to believe that all of this is to protect us from terrorists, deliver us from evil, and spread democracy around the globe (preferably by the massive bombing of innocent civilians to reduce any possible casualties to our too-thin and exhausted troops). Dick the Slimy (remember him) has said, Damn right! We’d do it again. Other of these nitwits insist its “been worth it.” I’m still waiting to learn what the “it” is that was worthy of all this murder, arson, plunder, rape, and untold misery for millions. Have we actually gained anything at all from this monumental blunder? If so, kindly explain to me what it is.

Mitt Romney has proven that he really is an astute businessman. Having blown some 15 million of his own money (probably more) on acquiring a few delegates, and having then figured out that realistically he had no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination, he has dropped out (or, rather, suspended his campaign, in hopes that something might happen to McCain). I think he said he might try again next time (I really look forward to another few years of flip-flopping and lying). Of course it’s all that evil Huckabee’s fault. If he had just dropped out as Romney wished, things might have been different. I’m kind of disappointed. I’m so used to chronic lying I think a lying Mormon would have given us some continuity. What I liked the best about Romney’s decision is, that because he loves America so much, he is helping to protect us from “surrendering to terrorists” (by not running for President). What a noble sentiment. We Democrats just can’t wait to wave the white flag and keep us from further war crimes and the senseless slaughter of more innocents. Oh, well, we can’t have everything. And think of what we have gained; a warmongering imperialistic militaristic old guy whose motto seems to be shoot first and ask questions later. As a very substantial majority of Americans are opposed to this “war” and want out, and as McCain is in it for the next 100 years (in addition to the other wars he assures us will happen), he should go far in the election to come. As many Brafia absolutely can’t stand him, I think their strategy is to humor him as a sacrificial animal, wait until the Democratic President finds out it is totally impossible to clean up after Bush in only four years, then criticize him or her for their failure, and attempt to regain the White House (this worked pretty well with Carter). But don’t sell McCain short. As the American public voted twice for Bush (sort of, anyway), there’s no telling what they might do by election day (we might even be in another war by then). Of course we could have had Giuliani, another astute Brafia candidate who blew about 50 millions (I think) of other people’s money and managed to get one (1) delegate. Heck of job, Rudy!

I despise meetings. I attend our local Democratic meetings merely to add bulk (and to eat war wonton soup). As Democrats here are few every body counts. I swear that every meeting I have ever attended is basically the same as the first meeting I attended as a cub scout. They always last from two to four times as long as necessary. The same people usually have to speak, whether they have anything to say or not, people rarely stay on the point, and usually they don’t really know much about what they blather on about. Thank god we don’t have to deal with pipe smokers anymore. You know, those guys who had to stop and clean their pipes while reviewing for themselves whatever stupid remarks they were going to make. We used to waste a lot of time waiting for these guys to clean, fill, and light those smelly things. See, I guess “progress” really is being made.


LKBIQ:
“There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things..”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Lewis Carroll

We're the Crazies

We’re the Crazies

Robber snatches money from till,
patron stops him with well-placed
whack to head with six-pack of bottles.

I have believed from even before he was elected that our Disuniter-in-Chief was borderline retarded. I also think he may well be crazy, or at the very least, sadistic.
But recently I have concluded that we (the American public) are the crazies. We must be to put up with him and his Brafia all this time. Consider some of the sordid facts that we already know: he lied to get us entangled in an illegal pre-emptive “war,” against a nation that was no threat to us. He has ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, many of them women and children. He has hidden prisoners from the Red Cross and “rendered” them into secret prisons around the world. He has violated our Constitution that he pledged to uphold repeatedly. He has placed himself above the law through multiple signing statements and refusal to obey them. He has illegally spied on us and insists he will continue. Our elected Democratic Congress refuses to impeach either him or his criminal Vice-President. He has continued to insist that we do not torture. The Director of the CIA has now admitted that we did waterboard at least three terrorists (and probably falsely claims we don’t do it anymore). Waterboarding is torture. It has to be authorized at the highest levels. Bush must have authorized it. It is a well-known and long-established war crime. Our Attorney General says if it happened to him it would be torture, but refuses to say it is legally torture. Bush claims we don’t torture (we just waterboard) because what we did was legal. Everyone knows it is not legal, that it is torture, that he is a war criminal several times over, that he has violated both our laws and international laws, he shows no remorse or any indication that he will stop. And what do we do? NOTHING! If that doesn’t indicate we are crazy, what does?

Oh, yes, the caucus. Last night here in little old Boundary Country 145 people turned out on a miserable snowy cold night to caucus for the Democrats. That is almost three times as many people as turned out the last time we did this. We have 3 delegates to our state convention. Obama won 2 and Clinton 1. Obama had more than 70% of the vote. In Idaho generally Obama won by 81%. What does this indicate? That people in Idaho, the most red state of all, as well a most lily-white state, presumptive home of the Aryan Nations, overwhelmingly voted for an African-American to be President. I am sure that many of these voters are enamored of Obama who is, admittedly charismatic and inspiring. But I suspect that lurking under all of this is the simple fact that there are damn few people in Idaho who would ever vote for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, the very name strikes terror into the hearts of tough-minded Idahoans everywhere. We have people who refuse to commit to running for office because they think she will be the candidate and every redneck in the state will come down off the mountains and vote against her, taking them with her into oblivion. I don’t believe this but people here believe it passionately. Somehow I doubt very much that Hillary Clinton worries a lot about the state of Idaho. But we sure worry a lot about her. It was great that Obama came to Boise and inspired us. But when the general election comes around, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, he or she will almost certainly lose to whatever mangy black-dog Brafia clown they decide to run. Any friend of Bill Sali’s is a friend of ours.

Can Clinton’s campaign be so hard up for money she had to personally loan it 5 million? Something fishy there. Obama is said to have raised 4.2 million just since last night. The Brafia is in a fine mess. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch (of criminals). Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the Brafia cheerleaders are “fit to be tied” (interesting, I can’t find this in my Dictionary of Idioms) but it is expressive.

LKBIQ:
“The time to hear bird music is between four and six in the morning. Seven o’clock is not too late, but by eight the fine rapture is over, due, I suspect, to the contentment of the inner man that comes with breakfast; a poet should always be hungry or have a lost love.”
Donald C. Peattie

Nobody likes him?

I have heard several times now, or read several times, that no one likes Mitt Romney. Why? Maybe it has to do with the fact that he is tall and handsome and looks Presidential. He is well-dressed and immaculately groomed and has nice hair. He speaks well and is filthy rich. The problem here is, he is a "goody, goody, two shoes." I suspect this is reason enough for people not to like him. But then, there is also his lying, about lots of things, like hunting and Martin Luther King. And he wants to double Guantanamo. He thinks Bush has done a fine job. He insists we stay in Iraq until we "win." He has flip-flopped on more issues than almost anyone in history. He is an opportunist and always looks at which way the winds are blowing. I don't know if he wears the Mormon underwear or not, or if he thinks it is sacred, he doesn't really talk about his Mormon faith much (I suspect for good reason). He also has a speech problem so that under even light stress he tends to say Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. However, I think I heard the real reason today why no one likes him. He eats fried chicken with a knife and fork! (aaagh). At least I think that's what I heard that supposedly was coming from Mike Huckabee. Now I would think that if you were a candidate for President and no one liked you that might be a problem. On the other hand, did anyone like Nixon? I think Romney will be finished soon. Being an astute businessman, he probably won't want to invest good money after bad.

I know someone who thinks it is terrible that Muslim women have to wear burkas. It is the "have to" that has caused me to think about this. I don't know much about the Koran but I do know that it enjoins both men and women to dress modestly and cover themselves, especially their genitals. This is obviously a cultural practice that has a very long history. In some Muslim countries some women have managed to give up wearing burkas, in Iran and Egypt, for example. But it is true that the Taliban insist women must continue to wear burkas and are severely punished if they don't. But how is this much different from what happens and has happened in other countries. For example, here in the U.S. women only wore dresses for a very long time. When some switched to slacks there was a bit of "to-do" about it, but eventually it changed. In fact, fashions in both male and female attire seem to be constantly evolving, in some places faster than others. But traditions are resistant to change and it always takes time and creates a bit of a problem. It must be misleading at best to assume that fashions in dress are dictated by males and that women are forced to wear what males tell them to (aside, perhaps, from the current Taliban). In the New Guinea Highlands women always wore little string aprons and went bare-breasted. When, after European contact, they began wearing mother hubbards and such I don't think many men objected. How much of a problem was it when women stopped wearing hoop skirts or girdles. I don't think the question of the burka is the basic problem that bothers western-Europeans. It is, I think, more the infringement of individual liberties and freedom that is involved, just as with the idea that women should not drive, or be educated, or vote, or whatever. The burka and headscarves are trivial compared to this greater infringement on human rights. American women were not forced to wear bikinis. But they are forced to cover their breasts, even the slightest glimpse of a nipple seems to throw some people into a frenzy of moralizing. American culture is weird, in fact, a culture of the absurd if you examine it closely.

I have been looking forward to super tuesday, hoping the selection would be finally over. Now I am told that it cannot possibly settle the nomination as neither Clinton or Obama can possibly get enough delegates to wrap it up. Damn! We have to go on with this ridiculous busines for months more. There ought to be a law, no politics until a month or two (at most) before the election. But like I say, a culture of the absurd. I like Lewis Black's suggestion: the winner of American Idol is blindfolded, throws a dart at a map of the U.S. A monkey is flown to that location and parachuted out. He lands and the first person to hold his hand is the President. Not much more absurd that our present system, and a whole lot cheaper.

Have you heard about Bush's latest budget? Surprise! He wants to increase military spending and cut domestic programs. He and his Brafia friends are sick people and require medical attention, preferrably psychiatric. But nothing that a good impeachment wouldn't help.

LKBIQ:
"Who knows when some slight shock, disturbing the delicate balance between social order and thirsty aspiration, shall send the skyscrapers in our cities toppling?"
Richard Wright

Render unto culture

Render unto culture that which is cultural? Are there elements of human behavior that simply have no acceptable explanation other than we conclude they are simply "cultural?" I have puzzled over this for a long time. For example, among the Tuareg, a group of nomadic camel-owning people that inhabited the central and western Sahara, all adult males wore veils. Women, children, and slaves did not wear veils (even though this was ostensibly a Muslim society). The veils were a thin piece of cloth, woven and dyed in the Sudan, that was wound around the neck and face in such a way as to hood he eyes and completely cover the nose and mouth. Men wore these veils both during the day and at night. When eating a man would put his hand under the veil carefully covering his mouth. He would never be seen without his veil, even by his closest friends and allies. No other people are known to have practiced this custom. There appears to be to explanation for it. The people thought to be the ancestors of the Tuareg did not practice it. As no others wore veils it apparently was not for the practical reason of keeping sand out of the eyes and mouth. Apparently the Tuareg themselves had no explanation for it. So in the absence of any other explanation we conclude it was simply an aspect of their culture. I have never been very happy with this explanation, and yet, I know of no other, and now way to ever discover an explanation. Obviously one thinks that somewhere in the distant past someone, probably a chief or leader of some sort decided they should do this and they have followed suit ever after.

Similary, in the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea, during a girl's puberty ceremony, at one point a man inevitably pulls on a finger of her right hand attempting to make it crack. I witnessed many of these ceremonies and this is always done. If you ask them why they do it they respond simply, "fesin b'long tumbuna" (the ancestors did it). But they do offer an explanation of sorts: they say it helps the girls grow faster. This is not really very helpful so, again, we conclude it is merely cultural.

This is what has been called an example of "radical cultral relativism," whose chief proponent has been Richard Schweder: "There are cases where canons of rationality, validity, truth, and efficiency are simply beside the point -- irrelevant!...there's something more to thinking than reason and evidence--culture, the arbitrary, the symbolic, the expressive, the semiotic--that many of our ideas and practices are beyond logic and experience." (quoted in Langness, The Study of Culture, 2005:285)

This point of view certainly raises questions about our attempts to explain everything historically, functionally, and in terms of simple cause and effect. It would seem to render our attempts to understand everything potentially futile, other than just surrendering to "fesin b'long tumbuna."

Barack Obama had a massive turnout in Boise this morning. As many as 15,000 estimated in the stadium and still more outside without seating. This, I think, is a good sign, but does Obama have enough time between now and tuesday to catch Hillary? Let us hope so. There certainly is an Obama bandwagon with MoveOn, the LA Times, a couple of huge unions, some of the Kennedys, Oprah, and many, many more joining in just the past few weeks and days. Go Obama! But will he be able to live up to his expectations that seem to be growing by leaps, if not bounds? What can we do but hope? I, like apparently millions of others, want desperately to believe.

LKBIQ:
"It is a very serious thing for a political creed or a political party when they are compelled in spite of themselves to hail national misfortunes as a means of advancing their cause."
Sir Winston Churchill

Dare I even ask?

A report out today says that our National Guard is not prepared for an attack on us. It doesn’t specify what kind of attack or by whom, but seems to think it might be nuclear or biological, or chemical, or whatever. I wonder if they mean a huge all-out attack by another country trying to invade the U.S., or if they mean just some run-of-the-mill attack by a handful of terrorists with a suitcase bomb, or what. If they are worried about the former, might I ask just what country do they think is strong enough to actually launch such an attack, especially when we are sitting on enough nuclear bombs to probably bring down the entire universe? And if they mean the latter, how prepared are we supposed to be? If it is a suitcase bomb, or chemicals, or biologicals, will it require the full force of all out National Guardsmen plus our entire military? Or just part of our military?

But what I really want to know is, no matter what kind of attack it may be, why in the world are we not prepared? It’s not as if there haven’t been enough funds for the past few years. Need I remind you that a full 50% or more of our national budget goes for defense? That is one hell of a lot of money. So where does it go if not into preparation for unknown attacks of any kind? We have a national defense budget that exceeds all the rest of the world’s military budgets, and has for some time. That’s not enough for us to be prepared? What have we done, pray tell, with all those billions upon billions, upon billions? Where did they go? Apparently not into preparation.

Not only are we being told that we are not prepared to defend ourselves in spite of this obscene budget, we are also being told that we don’t have enough military. We need more. Like 100,000 more, at least. We have a defense budge that is greater than all the rest of the world combined and we need more? What kind of kool-aid are they serving at the Pentagon and in Washington D.C.? And what kind are we drinking that we haven’t laughed these clowns out of existence? By any standard of common sense or reality this defense business is utterly absurd.

Of course there has been the illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary “war” in Iraq in which we are dropping bombs on civilians as if they are gum drops. And we are firing so many rounds of ammunition we have to import some from Israel (they seem to have plenty, that we no doubt paid for in the first place). We apparently get one hit for every million rounds fired. Then there is our “empire.” We have bases in some 70 different countries around the globe. Why? Why do we need these bases all over the place? All these countries are incapable of defending themselves (why should they when we are doing it for them, except we aren’t really doing anything much there anyway)? Like Germany and South Korea need lots of American troops?

Realistically, does anyone believe we are going to be the victim of a massive attack by another country? An attack in which we will need thousands of tanks and howitzers, and battleships and 5000 pound bombs, nuclear bombs, and all of the other military hardware we seem to build, declare obsolete, build some more, declare obsolete, and so on and on into eternity? The absolutely worst case scenario is that some few terrorists would manage to infiltrate our country and explode a big bomb. Granted this would be tragic, does it really require a defense budget larger than all the rest of the world? Of course not. As I have said before several times, our “defense” budget has very little to do with defense. It has everything to do with putting more and more taxpayer money into the pockets of massive corporations that manufacture all this stuff that we don’t really need. The military/industrial/political complex that we have allowed to take over are ruining our country. They simply can’t get enough. Their massive budgets increase year after year to virtually no purpose whatsoever. So in the meantime we go without health care, schools, infrastructure, accept poverty by millions of our people, and so on. We blow these things up around the world so we can rebuild them for the people that had them in the first place. And in the process we spend billions on research to find ways to be even more destructive of life and property. We are engaged in the most massive fit of madness ever to infect the human species. No amount of misery and bloodshed are enough, we have to constantly strive for more ways to inflict even more on our fellow creatures. Our entire history is written in blood and gore. We are a disgrace to life on the planet earth.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.

LKBIQ:
“Do you not know, my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?”
Julius III

Was I hallucinating?

I think I must have been hallucinating. I thought I saw two intelligent, well-informed candidates actually debate for a full 90 minutes in detail, the ISSUES: Iraq, health care, immigration, the economy, and taxes. Incredible. There was no name-calling, no petty squabbling over nonsensical or trivial matters, no evading the problems, no flowery BS. It was a remarkable performance by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A truly refreshing change from what has gone on previusly as "debates." It makes the recent Brafia debates look like a bunch of kindergartners. It was all the more interesting because the differences between the two candidates on these issues are not really very great. It would be impossible to say who "won." There is a difference between the two health plans, mainly over the issue of whether or not they should be mandatory. Obama says not, Hillary says yes. Both plans would still have problems with people who did not want or would not join a plan. I don't think this is a really serious difference. Then, Clinton doesn't want illegals to have driver's licenses whereas Obama does. Obama argues there is a question of public safety involved. Clinton says illegals shouldn't be rewarded with priviledges. Again, I don't think this is a big difference or problem. On the big picture of immigration they seem to be pretty much in agreement. with one very important exception. This was pointed out by the very clever Rachel Maddow and I'm not sure many were fully aware of it. Obama, among other things, said blacks should not scapegoat illegals as they were not the cause of black unemployment (in the overall scheme of things). Clinton, however, implied just the opposite, by making a subtle (or not so subtle) hint that they might be responsible, thus potentially shoring up part of the black vote.

When asked how they would pay for their health care plans they both said they would raise taxes on the wealthy by doing away with Bush's obscene tax relief for the wealthy, and also by streamlining the system with better technology and organization. As near as I can tell from this debate the only real difference between Obama and Clinton has to do with her unfortunate vote for going to "war" with Iraq, a vote she continues to defend because of the circumstances of the time. She is not being completely honest about this, I think, as she apparently did not even read the document involved and there were thousands of people who knew better that she must have been aware of. Even though there seems little difference in their respective positions about Iraq at the moment, Clinton has a continuing problem here that she will never really be able to bury. I'm not sure that I think this is as important as it has been made out to be. The accuse her of making the vote for political purposes. But she is a politician and politicians often make strange votes for political reasons. Clearly it was a mistake in retrospect, but does it really mean she has terrible judgment all the time? How strongly this should be held against her I'm not sure. The experience vs inexperience issue in general seems to have lost its salience. Both seem to be ready to take over the Presidency quickly. So, is five days enough time for Obama to overcome Clinton's lead? Or is this taking place just too fast for people to get to know Obama better? Perhaps we should all just flip a coin.

Except for the one thing that truly bothers me about Clinton. She is DLC, Brafia- lite. And of course no matter what the candidates say they want to do or will do, there is no guarantee they will actually do that if and when they become President. More importantly, her best line of the night was "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, maybe it will take a Clinton to clean up after this Bush." This bothers me because in a very real sense Bill Clinton did not entirely clean up after the first Bush administration. Remember Iran-Contra. There is no doubt that the elder Bush was involved up to his eyeballs in illegal actions but Bill Clinton just let it drop. Will Hillary Clinton do anything about the Bush/Cheney war crimes? Will anyone, for that matter?

And how long do we have to put up with this disgusting charade about waterboarding? Now Mukasey says if it was done to him it would be torture. But at the same time he refuses to say if it is (legally) torture. It has been defined as torture since the Inquisition. People have been prosecuted for it. Virtually everyone in the world knows it is torture. People that have experienced it say it is torture. Even John McCain says it's torture. So what's the problem? Mukasey says the CIA doesn't do it anymore. I guess that means it was okay that they did it before? Obviously he won't say it's torture because if he did Bush and Cheney would be clearly guilty of a war crime (actually, they are guilty of so many I don't know why this one would by itself make much difference). But that's the way it stands. The Brafia will do anything to protect their war criminals. Will Hillary Clinton do the same? Will Obama? The question that apparently dare not show its face.

I have just finished Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Supreme Court, The Nine. Absolutely fascinating. Well-written, easy to read, informative, and a pleasure. It tells a great deal about the personalities of the Judges, goes into detail about the major cases, who handled them and why, and in general gives us a lucid picture of an institution that is otherwise pretty secretive. It also gives a glimpse of what went on behind the scenes in some of the appointments. Rather than a sensationalized expose or highly charged partisan political hit, it is a serious and fair assessment of the players and their important decisions, how they came up and how they were decided. Highly recommended.

Another foot of snow! We're on track to have one of the heaviest snow seasons on record. There must be a good three feet of it on the ground already and there is no let-up in sight. One of the cats managed to catch a Flicker and drag it into the house while still alive. It managed to wedge itself behind the water heater where it could not be retrieved and could not escape. Our neighbor came to our rescue and finally managed to catch and release it. We retain lots of feathers. I hope it won't freeze. Life in the country.

LKBIQ:
Radiant moonlight
reflects on virginal snow
and sacred silence
Morialekafa

What a crock!

Angry at being left alone
with infant, he throws it
down the stairwell.

I think we should ban the concept of news 24/7, at least until they live up to the claim. What we are doing now is just getting 24 hours of utter nonsense. Today it is all about whether Obama snubbed Hillary or not, complete with photographs (that can be interpreted any way you wish). To me it is perfectly obvious that Hillary is shaking hands with Ted Kennedy while Obama is turned away talking with someone else. Obama says he didn't snub her. Hillary, I think somewhat ingenuously, says she was reaching out her hand. She was reaching out her hand - to Ted Kennedy. Anyway, I am angry to be commenting on this at all as it is just another stupid tempest in a teapot that isn't worth 5 seconds of time (but MSNBC has spent hours on it today). What a crock! As if this isn't bad enough they show another photograph in which Obama and Kennedy are said to be looking at Hillary. Imagine that! Looking at her! My god, what will they do next! Only newspersons could be crass enough to think that either Obama or Kennedy are boorish enough to snub Hillary Clinton. What a crock! This is supposed to be news? I guess to MSNBC it is news, right up there with her cleavage, her cackle, her pantsuits, wrinkles and all. No doubt there will soon be time devoted to what she had for breakfast and whether it was good or bad or had some sinister symbolic meaning. Chris Matthews seems to love wallowing in this kind of utter nonsense. I gather MSNBC isn't really concerned about Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, torture, immunity, the recession, impeachment, etc., etc., etc. CNN isn't any better and Fox News isn't news. Carrumba! The MSM are hopeless. The Brafia is having another one of their braying sessions tonight. I can't watch it. My delicate constitution can only handle so much BS a month, and this month has already gone far beyond my capacity.

And please, to whom it may concern: Do not try to tell me how the sweet, innocent Israelis, with their billions and billions of military hardware, sitting on stolen land, refusing to give up even an inch, are being put upon by the evil and malicious Palestinians they have forced into Gaza and are trying to slowly starve to death. And don't even try to tell me there are two sides to every story. At this late moment, for all intents and purposes, there's only one side to this story: the slow, systematic, immoral, premeditated destruction of the Palestinians, aided by the United States.

Rumors are already starting about why John Edwards stepped down from the race. Some say it's because of his wife's health. Some say it's simply because he knew he couldn't win. Some suspect he's made a deal with either Obama or Hillary to become Attorney General or some such other position. He hasn't endorsed either Hillary or Obama yet. So who will it be? Personally, I don't see how he could possibly endorse Hillary after attacking her repeatedly about being a corporate whore, but stranger things have happened. My guess is he'll support Obama. One of my more astute friends things people are beginning to have buyer's remorse about Hillary. I think he may be right. I hope so.

Help! We seem to be caught up in never-ending snowstorms. I don't mind the snow in principle, but when it gets like this I say enough already! I'm starting to worry about the roof because it's deep up there. As Sandhill operates mostly by Linda-power I don't worry too much about anything else. By the way, through the magic of local government, we now live on Wistful Way. It's appropriate.

LKBIQ:
"Hell itself abhors dishonor."
Tuareg proverb

I don't get it

Man hires prostitute,
thinks she might flee,
bites off her ear.

John McCain has won the Florida primary where the lack of independent voters was supposed to be a problem for him. I think he won because Huckabee managed to take votes from Romney which probably made just enough difference. Happily Giuliani has dropped out. It looks like McCain may have the edge now and could presumably end up as the Brafia candidate. But why? I don't get it? A mere 25% or so of the American public support Bush and his immoral "war." McCain wants to continue that unsavory business, for 100 years if necessary. And he's already talking about further wars. He is obviously a warmongering imperialist which presumably is what Americans no longer want. So why would the Brafia want to run him for President in such an environment (assuming that he does, in fact, get the nomination)? It just doesn't make sense. Will they just put him (or Romney, for that matter) up as a sacrificial candidate, knowing they probably can't win anyway? Of course it's far from over and Romney, the Lying Mormon, may actually win. Again, he wouldn't seem like a very wise choice, being such a transparent prevaricator who will change his spots depending upon the location and the prevailing winds. And, of course, he's also a Mormon. He doesn't believe this will matter. He could well be right (but maybe not).

In 1904, in response to an attempted revolt by the Herero in Namibia, the Germans drove them into the Omaheke desert and blocked all access to water. Between 45,000 and 65,000 thousand died painful deaths from starvation and thirst. Historians have described this as an instance of blatant terrorism and shocking brutality. Does this remind you of anything that's happening in the Middle East at the moment? It does me. In response to the Israeli attempt to starve and humiliate them the Palestinians destroyed a wall keeping them out of Egypt so they could get food, water, and other basic necessities. The Herero had no such opportunity. What the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians is nothing short of slow genocide, with the blessing of the U.S. If anyone cares they don't seem to be able to do much about it. I remind you that Hamas is the legally elected democratic government of the Palestinians, whereas the U.S. and Israel prefers to pretend that Abbas, sitting on the West Bank, is. There can never be an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis as long as Hamas is kept out of the negotiations. And there is no way on earth a Palestinian state can ever emerge from this imperialist mess. Bush's claim that all will be well by the end of his term just marks him once again as the world's worst idiot. This is so laughable I'm surprised the Middle East hasn't laughed itself to death. Instead they just wait patiently for this pathetic moron to finish his term (what else can they do, given the fact that our Congress won't do the right and honorable thing and impeach him and his evil Rasputin). The idea that a viable Palestinian state could be created in spite of Israeli intransigence (and greed) is a pipe dream that wouldn't be found even in an 18th century opium den. The Israelis will never permit a viable Palestinian state unless it is some modern form of a bantustan. I have believed from the very beginning that George W. Bush is borderline retarded. He has done nothing in these seven miserable years to cause me to change my opinion. Is our President learning? The answer has to be a resounding NO! Please, Big JuJu, make 2009come quickly.

LKBIQ:
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on."
North African proverb

State of the Lies

Big News! Just in! Obama is going to be in Boise on Saturday! Maybe Idaho does matter.

Bubblehead: I thought I might have lost you. But you're back and up to your old tricks. How is it you never speak to the point? My blog last night was not designed to specify precisely when marijuana was banned, or by whom. I know that some defined it as a problem before Nixon. Indeed I had the (dis)pleasure of seeing Reefer Madness probably 16 or so years before you were born. I do think the current mess with our drug laws are more appropriately traced to Nixon than anyone earlier, but that is beside the point of my blog, which was to say that our current laws, especially those dealing with marijuana, are stupid. You don't speak to that point. Similarly, in the past, if I say Bush/Cheney are war criminals, you always bring up some peripheral nitpicking point that is basically irrelevant. Do you think they are war criminals, or you just don't want to say? Your approach is always the same and always seems to avoid the point. I swear, if I said humans were creatures with two arms and legs, you'd drag out a one armed man just to prove I was wrong. I'm happy that you know so much about history and such. Be a bit more imaginative and a bit less picky. Or as some say nowadays, get a life.

Masochism. That's what made me watch the State of the Lies and Fairy Tales tonight. As I long ago gave up any hope that Bush would ever tell the unvarnished truth about anything, I can't say I was particularly disappointed. He didn't really say much about the actual state of the union (obviously he wouldn't dare) and spent a lot of time just saying what it is we ought to do (or, rather, what Congress ought to do). Mostly fairy tales. I always wonder if he actually understands everything he is saying (or reading), and, if he does understand any of it, if he believes it (which I find difficult to believe). Of course the surge is working (he says), the Iraqis are making progress (he says), we are going to win (he says), things in Palestine and Israel are going to be just peachy by the end of the year (he says), Iran is a danger to the world (he says), and so on and on, the same old drivel he's been giving us for the past seven years. And of course his Brafia members applaud and stand while the Democrats mostly sit on their hands. A wonderful show of bipartisanship (something the Brafia destroyed a long time ago lest you forget how they refused even to let Democrats use meeting rooms, acted behind closed doors, ran overtime to twist arms to get their way, and etc., etc.). How soon we forget these things. Are we going to forget the almost 4,000 American troops dead, millions of Iraqis displaced and killed, misery so widesspread it could not possibly ever be fully comprehended or measured, and all for a completely unnecessary "war" against a nation that was no threat to us? The only positive thing one can say about Bush's speech is that it was his swan song, the last one we'll ever have to endure. I thought for a while it would never end. Bush needn't worry any more about his legacy, it's already set in stone: the worst President ever, an absolute disgrace to our country, a pathetic loser apparently too dim to even understand how terrible he has been. Good riddance.

I must say I was surprised, as was everyone, when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, and even more surprised at how enthusiastic he is about it. People can say endorsements don't count but I bet this one will, and probably just with those people Obama needs to reach out to: Hispanics, young people, and the elderly. I like Hillary and Bill, and I think they have not been treated fairly for years, but I also think they represent the past and the status quo, and I believe Obama is a hope for a better future.

LKBIQ:
"It is the preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly."
Bertrand Russell

Stupid

Stupid is as stupid does I guess. I read today that last year (2007) there were 739,000 (that's seven hundred thirty nine thousand!) arrests for marijuana. There were also 91,000 related felonies. The (one year) cost of this foolishness is estimated at one billion dollars. Our jails and prisons are full of people incarcerated for pot related "crimes." I'm sorry, but no matter how you look at it, this is STUPID! We have known for years that the deleterious effects of marijuana are nowhere near as bad as we are being told, and certainly nowhere near as bad as the effects of alcohol which is legal. Even when Nixon banned pot it was in spite of the reports he received which said it was not all that harmful. Virtually every study of marijuana done since that time have said the same thing. So why do we insist on making pot possession a crime and locking people up for years because of it? The only conclusion I can come to is that we are STUPID! Our prisons are overcrowded and we are building new ones year after year. A disproportionate number of blacks are incarceratead (probably Hispanics too), due in large measure to our absurd laws about marijuana. I believe it is true (I am not sure of this) that we are currently spending more money on prisons than on college and university education. This is STUPID! The facts about marijuana are not hard to come by. There are many books and articles on the subject. Some of them go much further than just marijuana and insist that all drugs should be legal as the current situation is no different than prohibition which, as you know, was a dismal failure. Well, the war on drugs is a dismal failure, a failure far worse than prohibition. But still it continues year after year wasting billions and billions and taking up time that could be better spent working on true crime. The drug "problem" is in reality a medical problem that our apparently less than bright Congress has insisted on making a political problem. Why is this? Because they are STUPID! Obama may, I sincerely hope, have some understanding of this situation, and perhaps might even try to do something about it. Hillary Clinton I am pretty sure will maintain the status quo, as no doubt would John Edwards. So Obama, and yes, the audacity of hope.

It seems most everyone is still digesting the results of the South Carolina primary. It's mostly about how bad Bill Clinton has behaved and the issue of race, race, and more race. I guess no one knew that Obama was an African American until Bill Clinton pointed it out. Bill and Hillary want to win the nomination and they want Hillary in the White House. Obviously they are going to use whatever advantages come their way, just as all other candidates would do. Trying to convert the race card into a Clinton dirty trick I think is missing the point. Obama is an African American and the media are not going to let anyone forget it no matter what Bill and Hillary do. Do we have to be reminded of how the Brafia has handled the Clintons for the past fifteen or sixteen years? Remember Starr? Gingrich? Rove? Barr? Remember the impeachment for a non-crime? Remember how the Clintons were accused of every crime known to man, including murder? So even if the Clintons are using the race card to their advantage that surely pales into insignificance compared to what they have had to put up with. Obama is an African American. The Clintons can't change that. Hillary is a woman and they can't change that. To the Brafia, however, Hillary is not merely a woman, she is the personification of evil, a witch who cackles and secretly eats children for breakfast, fair game for every sleazy roviating scheme they can think of. Speaking of dirty tricks, you ain't see nothing yet, wait until we actually have candidates. Rove and the swift-boaters are licking their chops just thinking of what they can do with Hillary. But rest assured, they won't spare Obama if he's the candidate. He won't stay African American for long. In the hands of the Brafia and Rove he'll become the jungle bunny, a spook, a jigaboo, a drug-crazed Muslim lusting after white women, a secret agent of the Taliban working to overthrow our innocent nation that loves everybody and just wants to spread democracy and joy around the world (let's see, almost 4,000 dead American troops, 30 or 40 thousand maimed, two or three million Iraqis displaced from their homes, probably a million innocents killed, a trillion or more dollars totally wasted). And no end in sight. But I digress. The Democratic candidate, whoever it is, is going to be subject to the most vile accusations and falsehoods that can be created in the brain of Karl Rove and his little band of evil pranksters. Be prepared.

LKBIQ:
"A Christian is a man who feels
Repentance on a Sunday
For what he did on Saturday
And is going to do on Monday.
Thomas R. Ybarra

Seriously

Father wants him circumcised,
mother doesn't, what's a 12
year old boy to do?

Seriously now, could anyone have believed that if an African American ran for President of the United States race would not be a factor? And gender, as well? Obama won a terrific victory in South Carolina, beating Hillary Clinton by a margin of at least 2 to 1. He must be congratulated. And his victory speech was magnificent. Say what you will, he is monumentaly inspiring, and he is certainly right that our country needs some drastic changes. If he becomes President, and if he delivers on his promise, he could easily become one of our greatest Presidents ever. And we desperately need such a person. Now. I am all for him.

But the campaign is not over. And he hasn't won it all yet. I worry that something could go wrong. There are different ways to interpret statistics. For example, we can say that he won 24% of the white vote and that is good (especially as he was said to perhaps win only 10%). But a note of caution: it also means 76% of white people did not vote for him. Could he win a national election with 75% of whites not voting for him? I worry about race in this campaign. It is being said that the voters in South Carolina rejected Bill Clinton's coded and not so coded references to his race (the comparison with Jesse Jackson, for example). But they didn't reject race as a factor. They didn't vote for him irrespective of his race. They voted for him 81% because of his race, or so it would appear. How can we say race was not a factor? And if it was such a factor in South Carolina what might it be in the country as a whole? Not all states have so many black voters. I am not trying to be a wet blanket or a party pooper or whatever, but I will not rest completely comfortably until Obama is actually occupying the White House. As it stands, Obama is our only hope (failing a deadlocked convention and a draft Gore movement).

I am all for Obama. He does, however, say things that I wonder about. For example, he insists there are no liberals or conservatives, no red ad blue states, only Americans and American states. He insists we are all one people, all loyal Americans. Unfortunately, after the past few years, I no longer believe that. There are in fact some disloyal Americans, some ultra-conservative ones, some who obviously do not share Obama's vision of one America, united. They are what used to be the Republican party but have over the past few years developed into a criminal conspiracy that has repeatedly violated our Constitution and laws, as well as International laws. I do not want to let bygones be bygones and reach across the hall to these evil war criminals. I want them held accountable for their murderous and rapacious crimes. I want to know what Obama is going to do about them. I fear the relief from the present administration will be so profound these criminals may simply be allowed to retire in peace, the easy way out, when they should be turned over to the Hague.

I predicted over one year ago that Hillary Clinton would be our next President. I have been wrong about every Presidential race except Bill Clinton for the past sixty years. I sincerely hope I will be wrong about this one. Let us all unite now behind Barack Obama. The well-being of the entire planet may well depend upon this one decision. Let's not blow it for a beer with Hillary.

LKBIQ:
"The very essence of a free government consists in considering offices as public trusts, bestowed for the good of the country, and not for the benefit of an individual or a party."
John C. Calhoun

The Clintons

I have this strange problem with the Clintons. I don't really like them very well. But I don't truly dislike them either. I don't want Hillary to become President, mainly because I believe she (and Bill) are basically just Republican-lite. She voted for the "war," so to speak, and she seems to me too close to Bush's way of thinking (if it can be said he has any way of thinking). But even though I feel this way about them, I find myself fairly consistently making excuses for them and their behavior. For example, I don't believe for one minute that Hillary cried on cue or on purpose to make political points. First of all, she didn't cry. She merely teared up at what was for her a trying moment and she was very tired. Those that accuse her of acting I think are simply being malicious. When she said her feelings were hurt when told that people liked Obama better than her (the kind of thing you might expect to hear on an elementary school playground), I think it was a perfectly genuine moment. I don't think she is a consummate actress and I do believe that like all of us she does actually have human feelings and emotions. I think there are times when her critics are not being fair (I'm sure there are times when they are). Anyway, I believe she is a victim of sexism, and there seems to me to be a good deal of very irrational Hillary hating out there.

What is more, I find myself defending Bill Clinton. Much is being made of how he and Hillary are playing the race card, being unethical, and so on. I don't think it is all that simple. I'm not at all sure that the Clintons are the ones who originally raised the race card. I think it was more likely the media, and now they have done it they are not going to let it rest. Of course there is no doubt that some of the Clinton supporters have said things they should not have said. But to believe that everyone who supports the Clintons only say things they have been told by the Clintons to say I think is far-fetched. I think it would be strange if Bill Clinton did not speak out on his wife's behalf. I don't think it is strange that he might have been slightly carried away at times. Obviously the Clintons have taken every advantage they can with respect to the campaign, but to accuse them of massive dirty tricks, roviating, and such, I believe is an exaggeration (it seems no exaggeration is too far fetched when it comes to Hillary or Bill, who have been at times accused of just about every crime known to man, including murder). I don't even hold Bill entirely resonsible for his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. Of course it was a stupid thing for him to have done. But it was not as if some lecherous old man had taken advantage of some innocent young lady. Monica was obviously well-schooled in matters of sex. She had even announced to one or more of her friends that she was going to Washington "with her knee pads." It was Monica who flashed her thong and came on to Bill. She knew what she was doing. And it was a consensual matter. The hypocritical Republicans that tried to bring down his Presidency were just as guilty of sexual peccadillos as Bill but acted as if he was the only one in Washington who ever had sex in his office or the White House. It is true that Bill should have been old enough and smart enough not to be seduced but, hey, it happens all the time, in Washington D.C. as well as elsewhere. Probably a good thing no one ever investigated John Kennedy's adventures in and out of the White House. When anyone starts in on Bill and Monica just say "Newt Gingrich," and they'll probably just shut up.

Anyway, I don't know exactly why I find myself defending the Clintons. I think it's mainly because I can't stand hypocrisy and I firmly believe in fair play. I don't think the Brafia has ever played fair with the Clintons and that unfairness continues. And the massive hypocrisy involved on the part of Gingrich and others far transends anything the Clintons have done. The hypocrisy of the Bush/Cheney administration far exceeds anything seen previously anywhere on earth. As they might say in Melanesian Pidgin, "Washington D.C. is the ass b'long hypocrisy).

It has been cold here at Sandhill for several days. Really cold. Oh, not below zero cold, but zero cold. I don't like it. Of course when you are sitting in the living room with a cosy fire reading a good book it's not bad at all. I've been reading about the Tuareg, nomads of the Sahara. Ostensibly Moslems, only Tuareg males wear veils and Tuareg women enjoy a very high status indeed. Culture is a wondrous thing.
I'm supposed to get my regular computer back tomorrow. Hurrah!

LKBIQ:
"I came to appreciate what good books really were and realized how much I needed them and they gradually gave me a stoical confidence in myself: I was not alone in this world and I would not perish."
Maxim Gorky

The Brafia debate

As I believe what used to be the Republican party has forfeited any right to claim that designation I can only refer to them as the Brafia (Bush Republican Mafia). By their unfailing support for the war criminals that lead them and their robbery of U.S. taxpayers to give to their corporate cronies, they have devolved into little more than a criminal conspiracy. This is probably unfair to Dr. Paul as he doesn't seem to belong in the same category. Unfortunately I watched their debate this evening. The first thing that entered my mind was: when was the last time any of them actually had a new or interesting idea. It was mostly just the same old nonsense about the tax and spend Democrats. They are absolutely obsessed with the idea that taxes have to be lowered (it doesn't matter what the taxes are, they always have to be lowered). And of course they insist that Democrats will raise taxes no matter what (they regard any form of equitable or fair taxation as raising taxes, no matter how unfairly the current tax code aids billionaires and corporations). They make it clear they will continue the existing situation that can only be described as borrow and spend (our children can pay). With the exception of Ron Paul they all believe in empire and will continue to try to control the world no matter what the cost. Although increasingly reticent to mention Bush, when they do it's to claim how wonderful he has been about keeping us free of terrorism (they mean here in the U.S.), and how clever he was to instigate the surge that, in their strange view, is working. They continue to insist that we are winning and/or will be victorious. They do not define victory but apparently they mean establishing a puppet government and leaving troops in place to defend it (while at the same time getting effective control of their oil). True to the imperialism of old, they seem to think the Iraqis themselves will have no right to say or do anything about this. The question of torture and other war crimes never comes up during any of their so-called debates. Ron Paul, the only one who seems to still be in touch with reality when it comes to the "war" and empire, is either ignored or treated as the eccentric old uncle who doesn't know what he is talking about.

They say things that make me believe they don't understand what they are actually saying. For example, Huckabee, defending his faith, said he didn't want to impose it on others (apparently he thinks amending the Constitution to bring it in line with God somehow isn't imposing it on others). Giuliani, in spite of his showing in the polls, insists he is going to win (I guess he has to say that to save face). Romney says he doesn't believe the American public is going to consider religion as a factor in the election. That might (and I say might) be true of the electorate in general but there are many evangelicals who believe Mormonism is a cult and will never vote for him. I'm not certain how many Americans want a President who thinks his underwear is sacred. Has anyone asked Romney if he believes in evolution?

These strange people seem to believe that the threat, the very threat, that a Democrat may win the White House, is causing the recession. Historically, the Markets have performed better under Democratic administrations. The members of the Brafia have ideas about Democrats they cling to dogmatically no matter what is going on in the world, just as they have these formulaic ideas about taxes, small government, fiscal responsibility, Manifest Destiny, and the glory of (others) sacrifices. They are, in short, hopeless dead-enders who are, in my opinion at least, incapable of either learning or understanding even the rudiments of empathy or fair play. I want them held accountable for their imbecilic incompetence.

LKBIQ:
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Albert Einstein

The Big Dog, the MSM, and Lies

I don't know if Bill Clinton's recent behavior and comments on behalf of his wife's quest for the White House are truly "unPresidential" or not, nor do I know whether or not he ought to "chill out." I do think that Obama is getting a lesson from the real pro's on what happens in a campaign. There is little doubt that Bill Clinton has infiltrated Obama's head, so to speak. However you want to feel about this there is one thing I believe the "Big Dog" is right about. The MSM is doing everything it can to keep the controversy between the Democrats alive. Bill Clinton said today that in meetings with the people they do not ask about the controversy but, rather, about serious issues facing them. It is the MSM that keeps feeding the fires of controversy (as Bill says, it's what they are interested in, not what the people are interested in). I firmly believe this is true. For example, after the recent Democratic debate where the candidates tried to play down issues of race and gender, CNN immediately scheduled a program on "Race and Politics." And there is no doubt in my mind that they consistently mistrue what the candidates actually said, as in the case of Obama on Reagan and Hillary on Martin Luther King. The MSM thrives on keeping this kind of trivia alive. In this particular case it is in their best interest to do so as splitting the Democrats works to their advantage. I'm convinced they also do it to keep our attention away from the disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now the economy. This is the functional equivalent of "keeping them knocked up and barefoot." The MSM long ago gave up any pretense of being an objective check on Washington and became active players in the political process.

Have we not always known that we were fed a raft of lies about Iraq and the necessity for going to "war" with that innocent country? I guess it helps to now have an actual count of the lies, 935 to be exact. Of course that is not truly exact because it all depends upon what definitions were used and such like. But it is useful to know there are 935 documented lies that cannot now vanish or be explained easily away. Is it likely that knowing this will make any difference, that anything will be done about it, that anyone will actually be held accountable? Don't hold your breath. Accountability seems to be a concept that has disappeared from the Congressional consciousness, vocabulary, and political process. How else can you explain that Bush/Cheney were not impeached a long time ago (and are not likely to be impeached now in spite of attempts to do just that)? The Brafia have been lying since day one of their current administration, more than seven years of consistent, incessant, even pathological lying, and have been allowed to get away with it. So why change now?

One of the most persistent and interesting lies at the moment has to do with torture. Some Brafia just deny that waterboarding is torture. That is a lie. Some, hesitant to come right out and say it is torture, say they don't know if it is or not. That, too, is a lie. Some say that whether it is torture or not it is necessary to protect us from terrorists. Another lie. It is by now common knowledge that waterboarding has been known as torture since the inquisition and that some people have been punished for it. It is known to be illegal both in U.S. law and in international law. So why do people who know better keep lying about it? It is quite simple, really. If they admit it is illegal the Brafia Godfather (Bush or Cheney, take your pick) would be, ipso facto, guilty of a war crime (and we couldn't have that, could we, it would be unthinkable accountability). So we go on blissfully living the lie and burying our collective heads in the sand, just hoping it will all pass and Bush/Cheney can ride off happily into the sunset (of the American dream).

There is a story about when Don Rickles was just starting out as a comic and Frank Sinatra entered the Rickles scene for the first time. Rickles is reported to have said, "don't just stand there Frank, hit somebody." I'm sure this is what most other countries would like to say to us here in the U.S. "Don't just stand there, do something!" Oh well.

LKBIQ:
"No one is fit to be trusted with power...No one...Any man who has lived at all knows the follies and wickedness he's capable of. If he does not know it, he is not fit to govern others. And if he does know it, he knows that neither he nor any man ought to be allowed to decide a single human fate."
Charles Percy Snow

Who's the worst?

This month has been absolutely terrible for our computers and blogging. My computer was visited by some evil creature from outer space and has been in the hands of the Geek Squad ever since. Out of desperation we bought a new laptop but it has its own problems, not the least of which is a wandering cursor. The server came back on for a couple of days but now it is out again. We are beginning to get desperate and may have to look for a different server. Such is life with computers.
The media cannot get enough of the heated exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the debate last night. It was quite a show and I find it difficult to figure out who was really the worst. Obama, I think, started it when he came out complaining about the Clinton’s misleading statements about his positions. He would have been far better off to have ignored them. But I think he asked for it when he said while he had been fighting the good fight Hillary had been a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal Mart. While it is true she was on the board of Wal Mart for a time I don’t think Obama scored any points by bringing it up. Unfortunately, it gave Hillary the opportunity to accuse him of defending a slumlord in the Chicago inner city. I have no idea if this is true but it probably has at least a small grain of truth in it somewhere. She would, I believe, have been better advised not to say it. John Edwards who spent most of the time just observing the two of them involved in this useless bickering tried to stay above the fray but couldn’t resist accusing them both of taking corporate money. What I thought was most interesting at this point was that Hillary pointed out that he, Edwards, was getting money from the big lawyer’s groups. His argument, which I think everyone missed or at least ignored was interesting. He claimed that was different because, if I understood him, the lawyers only gave him money so he (and they, presumably) could do good work for the public. I strongly suspect that just as in the case of other corporate giving (for which he continually insists they expect something in return) the lawyers are also going to expect something. I guess because of his somewhat marginal position in the debate no one paid any attention to this and there was no follow-up of any kind. There are no innocents in this political business.
The Brafia must be eating this up. What could be better from their point of view than having the Democrats splitting and arguing about how dishonest each other is. The Brafia, along with their cronies in the MSM, have maneuvered us into a situation which is win-win for them. We are allowed to pick between a woman (there are doubts that a woman can win), and an African-American (there are doubts that a black man can win), who are being pitted against each other and doing perhaps irreparable damage to the Democratic party. Thus there is a better chance that a Brafia might actually win. But failing that they will have Hillary Clinton of the DLC, an arm of the Brafia established in the Democratic party. The worst outcome they can expect would be Obama but, he too, is basically just another politician with ties to big business. This is one of the oldest gambler’s tricks in the business where the odds are all in your favor. Any candidate that might have mounted a real challenge to the status quo has been ignored, ridiculed, and left out of the equation. Clever, this criminal conspiracy that runs our country.

LKBIQ:
My poetic friend, Barbara H. (the only person I know older than I am), slipped and fell the other day. She sent us the fruits of her latest poetic inspiriation:
Ice, ice,
is seldom
Nice.
I am thinking of her work as a new genre. I call it mini-haiku. It is a refined combination of the true master, Matsuo Basho, and our own Ogden Nash.

Three's a crowd

Young man and girlfriend, both nude,
arrested for traffic violation. He
loses both SUV and girlfriend.

Hillary Clinton won Nevada with 51% of the vote. Barack Obama had 45%. John Edwards had only 4%. This was touted to be a race too close to call for all 3 candidates. So what happened to Edwards? I think after the love-in that substituted for a debate in Nevada, where all 3 candidates swore their love to each other, people realized that as in all love triangles someone has to go. In this case Edwards. Why Edwards? He was the only one of the three that even mentioned any possible differences, and also continued his campaign against the corporations (that all support both Clinton and Obama in one way or another). Edwards must have seen this coming as he complained that the media was ignoring him (which they were). There was little doubt that Edwards would have to go but the suddenness with which it happened was stunning. He has always counted on South Carolina to help him. With a showing this dismal even that now appears to be a longshot. The powers that be don't need any uppity white boys causing trouble. There are complaints about dirty tricks, of course. When are there not? But the complaints mostly surface when one side's dirty tricks outdo the other. Like the warmongering imperialist himself once said, "this is politics, not bean bags." I suspect if Hillary were to somehow win next week in South Carolina it would be pretty much all over. I like Hillary. I think she's actually the best candidate hands down. However, she's DLC, the Brafia wing of the Democratic party. I want Kucinich and, failing that (of course) Obama will have to do.

The Republican contest in South Carolina seems to have gone pretty much as expected with McCain beating Huckabee, but not by much. Even so, it must be the end for Huckabee because if he couldn't win with all the evangelicals there, where can he win? I doubt he has enough funds to go much further. Small loss. It looks like the Brafia candidate will either be McCain or Romney. Put your money on the latter. He'll get so flustered in the Presidential campaign when his lies start to catch up with him it should be at the very least an amusing contest. Much as I might want Obama vs Romney I strongly believe it will ultimately be Clinton vs Romney. Put your money on Clinton, the filly is a strong finisher.

Fred Thompson did the weirdest thing I've ever seen. While the votes were still being counted in South Carolina, and he was not doing too well, he decided to make a speech. He thanked everyone in his campaign, his parents, people from Tennessee, and even his grandchildren. I thought he might think he had won an Oscar. It was so bizarre I turned it off so I didn't learn what it was all about. One might have assumed he was dropping out but I don't think that is what he did. No doubt I'll find out in the morning, someone must have paid attention. I don't follow the Brafia too closely.

My wife is making veal stock. The smell is driving me crazy. Of course we have to import the veal bones from Seattle. No one in Bonners Ferry would even consider eating veal. Our one (kind of) supermarket once featured some veal when it first opened several years ago. That was it. Once. They have never had it again. Once they also had squid. The woman in the checkout line refused to touch it and demanded to know what it was. When I told her I feared she might pass out. The other day, for the very first time, they had a couple of small packages of octopus. My wife bought them, hoping to encourage them. We'll see. Fortunately, we can go to Creston, B.C., thirty miles up the road, and buy all sorts of good things. But true to the best traditions of bureacracy we are unable to bring veal back into the U.S. Mad cow disease, you know. But we know mad cow disease only occurs in animals three years of age or older. So why not veal? Now, to add insult to injury, they changed the rules once again so three-year-old beef cattle can now be imported once again from Canada. Still, no veal. Go figure.

LKBIQ:
"In the presence of the very beautiful, as in the presence of the immensely intelligent, terror contributes to our over-all reaction, and it is as much fright as appreciation which causes the stabbed-by-an-icicle chill that for a moment murders us when a swan swims into view."
Truman Capote

Moments that matter

Armed man demands cash, cigarettes.
Gets cash, waits for cigarettes.
Accidentally shoots self in groin.

Are there moments that really matter in Presidential campaigns? I know I sometimes make too much of too little, but there are moments that matter to me. These are just moments, not monumental statements or items of obvious importance. For example, when Mitt Romney claimed he had been a hunter all his life. This was a blatant lie and made me aware that he was the kind of person who would obviously say anything to attain his goal. When he then followed that with "we should double Guantanamo," I knew he would literally say anything. I simply cannot trust a person who lies so glibly and stupidly and is exposed so easily. I was not at all moved by Hillary Clinton's tearful moment. I merely assumed she was very tired (which I'm certain she was). I was moved, however, when Hillary resonded, "It hurts my feelings," when told people liked Obama better than her. Her response was immediate and I felt it was completely genuine. It made me think better of her. Now Obama has provided a moment that I believe he is going to regret. When he offered Reagan as an example of one of the great Presidents who had changed the country I immediately had to question his judgment. Saint Ronnie, in my opinion, was an absolutely terrible President. Edwards is quite right on this: Reagan opposed the unions, ignored Aids until it became epidemic, neglected the middle class and the poor, turned the insane out into the streets, tried to ruin the environment, and on. I simply have to hold this against Obama, and I am not at all happy to learn that Hillary apparently also thinks highly of Reagan. This, to me, is almost unforgivable. I would like to think they both meant simply that he did actually change things (although for the worse) and in that sense only he was okay (but I don't think this is what they meant). Then we have McCain's moment when he allowed as to having troops in Iraq for a hundred years would be okay with him. Well, it's not okay with me. I think it is absolutely terrible and only confirms my belief about McCain that either he is slightly demented in his old age or he is an unregenerate warmongering imperialist. When Giuliani said there was absolutely no connection between American foreign policy and what was happening in the Middle East he ceased to exist as a serious person and exposed himself as an utter and complete fool. Of course there is Huckabee's statement to the effect that we need to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with the word of God. What on earth could anything thinking person do with a statement that idiotic? Of course he had already dismissed himself as a serious candidate when he disallowed evolution. Thompson demonstrated his ignorance by proclaining that when he walked through a gun store he felt like he was in paradise. I'm not opposed to gun ownership but what a ridiculous thing to have said. Edwards, as far as I know, has not had such an obviously absurd moment. However, if he says he's the son of a mill hand one more time I think I might throw up. He seems to have a very impoverished stump speech that he should try to work on. Anyway, I don't know if these moments mean anything to anyone else, but they do to me. It's like when someone says something to you in anger and you know you will never be able to forgive it.

My wife is an absolutely super cook and I'm certain we eat as well or better than anyone in Idaho. This is partly because we can get truly great food here, chemical free beef, pork, lamb, and chicken. Organic vegetables, fruit and berries, wheat and other grains, wild mushrooms and such. She is also very much into the slow food and organic food movements and won't even consider eating most commercially prepared foods as she is convinced they are terribly bad for you. As devil's advocate I needle her with questions like: if such foods are so bad for you how do you explain that Americans are living much longer lives than they did previously. They also seem to be healthier longer. So how come? She never answers. She just thinks I am stupid. I believe her. But I still wonder about it.

LKBIQ:
"I am the inferior of any man whose rights I trample underfoot. Men are not superior by reason of the accidents of race or color. They are superior who have the best heart -- the best brain."
Robert G. Ingersoll

I'm back

Puppy upsets bird feeder,
Grandma shoots puppy,
can no longer own guns.

I have not been able to blog for the past three days. Our server (I guess that's what it's called) is located on a mountaintop. Inclement weather apparently damaged it and it could only be reached with difficulty, hence the delay. I still can't get my email, but that's no big deal as I hardly ever get any anyway.

I watched the Democratic love-in in Nevada and was very pleased and proud of how our remaining candidates conducted themselves. I am not pleased, however, to know that these three have been allowed by the MSM to continue while others (mainly Kucinich) have not. Of course this is what our politics have come to over the years - we are only allowed to vote for candidates picked for us by the Media and the powers that be. It appears the MSM are preparing to rid us of Edwards next. Given the realities of our fake system I am not displeased with either Clinton or Obama (who are both bought by the big corporations but what else could be expected these days). As far as winning the election this year goes I think the Democrats are in good shape.

I can't say as much for the other group (the Brafia) who seem to have some kind of death wish. My son has said from the beginning that Romney would be their candidate and at the moment it looks like he will be proven correct. Mitt Romney, the Lying Mormon, just what we need in the White House (to replace the ones we have there now). Who else can it be? McCain is running on a pro-eternal war platform when the vast majority of the public is sick of it all and wants out. Not only that, there is a rumor today that he may pick Lieberman as his running mate! If this isn't a death wish I don't know what is. He might as well pick Dick the Slimy (remember him). Huckabee is even worse with his talk of amending the Constitution to bring it in line with the bible. Now he has also come out with the claim that same sex marriages will lead to bestiality, among other things. What a winning platform! They don't seem to be able to keep Thompson awake long enough to run. Interestingly, that may not matter in South Carolina. Giuliani will probably disappear after losing in Florida. After all, what reason would anyone have for voting for him unless they are interested in serial monogamy, abortion, and torture? Romney was caught lying again today by some reporter in an episode in a Staples store that was caught on videotape. What a fine bunch of candidates! I can't imagine anyone of them as President. But, then, I couldn't imagine Nixon, Reagan, or the Bush's either. I don't know what, if anything, goes through the minds of the voting public. If they could just resurrect Saint Ronnie, one of the worst Presidents of all time, I guess they would be gloriously happy.

The polls (them again) seem to indicate that either one of the three Democrats could win Nevada. Does it matter? I doubt it except for the fact that it might keep Edwards going a bit further. The voting records of all three are virtually identical so take your pick.

There is a battle going on between the DNC and the DLC over who will control he Democratic party from now on. If the DNC loses Howard Dean will be gone in a flash. If the DLC wins we'll go back to the situation in the 1990's and the Progressive Democrats will have lost out. As the DLC is little more than an arm of the Brafia this would not be an outcome to look forward to with glee. Hillary and Bill will be in charge and Republican lite will rule. Obama or Edwards are clearly the better choices but, like always, what candidates say they will do, and what they do, do once in office is mainly a mystery, a roll of the dice. Why do we keep participating in this charade?

LKBIQ:
"We have unmistakable proof that throughout all past time, there has been a ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong."
Herbert Spencer