Wyoming man steals bottle
of schnapps, flees into nearby
building… a police station.
On the contrary, Sarah, while you have said it would be absurd not to consider running for President, I would suggest that the very idea that you either would or could run for President of the United States is what is absurd. By what conceivable stretch of even the most vivid imagination would make you a serious candidate for President? First, you would have no chance of winning. Second, you are completely unqualified. Third, you couldn’t even manage being Governor of a relatively small (in population) state, Fourth, you quit in mid-term because it was too difficult, Fifth, your husband, with no qualifications whatsoever, was intimately involved in making important decisions in Alaska, Sixth, you were widely regarded as not even being qualified to be Vice-President, Seventh, you are an absolutely know-nothing ignoramus, eighth, You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of a platform, ninth, you couldn’t even remember your three major talking points without writing them on your hand, and tenth, you are an absolute insult to anyone with even half a brain.
What infuriates me is that although I know you are ignorant almost beyond belief, when it comes to what it might take to become President, and although I know you have no chance of ever being President, and in addition you are no more qualified than virtually any woman in the U.S. picked at random, you are still getting all this media attention. Who, besides a small cadre of no-nothing idiots even cares what you say? What credentials do you have to criticize the President? You know nothing of foreign policy, nothing about the economy, nothing about health care, nothing about anything else above and beyond what the ordinary American citizen thinks they know, so why do you pretend otherwise? You are, in short, an absolute phony, enjoying the limelight only because John McCain expressed his utter contempt for his country and its citizens by picking you to be his vice-president running mate. What you are doing by continuing to bask in the spotlight, pretending to be something you are not, is simply continuing this contempt for our country and its citizens. I confess I am not at all certain you are even being serious. Either you are so stupid you actually believe you are qualified, or you are merely using your fifteen minutes of fame to make as much money as possible, in either case the very idea that you seem to believe you could be a viable Presidential candidate, in and of itself proves you are too stupid to be one. There is such a thing as reality. You seem to be unaware of it, along with your small following of absolute nitwits that are making a mockery of our (what’s left of it) democracy. Do us a favor, take your money and run before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Why am I so upset about you? The truth is you remind me of my aunt Mamie, you even somewhat resemble her. She was an uneducated, ignorant woman who had strong opinions about everything but knew nothing about anything. I suffered her for many years. You said “they” (apparently the current administration) want you to shut up and sit down, so do I.
I saw somewhere the other day the Pentagon is now changing their overall strategy. Instead of planning for two major wars at the same time they are going to plan for many small encounters here and there. I find this fascinating. I always thought the two war strategy at least sort of made sense, after all I thought it might be at least theoretically possible that we might be attacked by both Russia and China at the same time, or maybe Canada and Mexico, or perhaps even Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, so I didn’t question too carefully this strategy. But is there any chance, even theoretically, that we might be attacked by a number of countries at the same time? This seems unlikely (in fact it seems unlikely we will be attacked at all by anyone ever these days). So why would we embrace this new strategy? The only reason this new strategy makes any sense at all is that we are going to continue to meddle in everyone’s affairs all around the globe and will be met with some resistance here and there. After all, the rest of the world did not appoint us to be the world’s policemen, and they might very well object to our trying to manage their affairs for them (while, of course, stealing whatever resources they have we might want). Apparently this is a strategy to insure that our “empire” remains secure, except that it won’t in the long run, as empires always inevitably fail, and ours is about to run out of funds. You might think a smart guy like Obama would realize this, but apparently not. Just as Churchill said he would never preside over the end of the British Empire, Obama seems to eagerly embrace the end of the American Empire. Granted we are not going to the moon again, we are apparently going to Mars, if we can borrow the money.
LKBIQ:
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy
TILT:
During World War I, Charles (Charlie) Chaplin presented himself for service but was rejected because he was too small, 5’ 5” and not in good health.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The Good Times are All Gone Now - book
The Good Times are All Gone Now, by Julie Whitesel Weston (University of Oklahoma Press, 2009)
This is, I think, kind of a strange book. The subtitle would lead you to believe it is about “Life, Death, and Rebirth in an Idaho Mining Town.” It is a bit about a mining town, but then it becomes more about going down into the Bunker Hill Mine (on a tour), and then, before you fully realize it, it becomes an autobiographical account of a girl going through Elementary and High School in Kellogg, Idaho, during the 50’s and 60’s. Then, at the end, there is a bit about the town reviving itself and its economy by attempting to become an all-season skiing and golfing resort. This is not to say it is a book without merit or interest, it is just not exactly what it seems.
Ms. Weston was born in Kellogg and went through High School there. She discusses this at some length, playing in the school band, giving up the flute to become a majorette, the football and basketball games, the flirtations, first kiss, first boy friend, fights with her father, and so on. This was a life probably not much different than schoolgirls that age everywhere. The fact that her father was a respected doctor, who was also a musician with a drinking problem, does make it perhaps more interesting than most. He not only had a drinking problem, when drinking he was also very abusive to his wife and children. He apparently was a fine doctor, did not drink when on duty, and was well-liked by the community, the stuff of a small town where everyone knows everyone else. People in such places tend to understand and forgive the problems of their peers.
Weston’s account of being taken down into the Bunker Hill Mine, as much as a mile underground, is both interesting and compelling as a description of what life was like for hard rock miners in North Idaho. She obviously had an ear for the language and writes her account to give the impression she knows more than she probably does (she was in reality little more than an insightful tourist). Her account of the famous brothels of Kellogg and Wallace, Idaho, also suffers from an imperfect knowledge of those institutions. For example, she offers what is purported to be a “menu” for one of the brothels, suggesting different charges for different sexual activities. I am quite certain that no such “menu” ever existed before one of the brothels was converted into a tourist attraction, and I doubt that most of the miners and muckers I knew in Wallace even would have understood what some of the items meant. What was undoubtedly true was that her father inspected the prostitutes regularly to insure they were free of diseases (just like an army, it would not do to have the miners infected and unable to work).
The account of mining, the procedures and their inherent dangers, is well described, and her description of the 1972 underground fire that killed 91 men makes the point dramatically. Her description of living in Kellogg where the polluting waste piled deeper each year, the air was foul, the trees and vegetation disappeared, the “Lead creek” (the Coeur d’ Alene river), filthy with mine waste and garbage ran through the center of town, and many children suffered from far too much lead in their bodies, reminds us of just how much people are willing to tolerate for jobs and security. Interestingly, she does not mention what we called “the con,” the lung disease that many of the miners almost inevitably contracted after long years in the mine.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is her discussion of the miners’ strike that ended in 1960 with the replacement of a national union with a local one, all because of the pathological anti-communism of the 50’s that lingered on in Kellogg even after McCarthy had been discredited. This obsession with communism was so strong it captured the entire city, where they saw communists everywhere. It seemed to be so strong that even whatever few might not have believed it kept their opinions to themselves. I suspect this fear of communism was not unique to Kellogg and probably existed more or less in most of the small North Idaho communities (and seems to linger in some even to the present day). In Kellogg and Wallace this was no doubt related to the history of violent miners’ strikes around the turn of the century, strikes that were the result of the socialist movements of that time that resulted in the assassination of one of the Idaho Governors and the blowing up of the Bunker Hill.
I believe Weston has written an interesting book, it certainly should be of interest to anyone not familiar with the mining districts of Idaho and life in one of the most polluted areas in the United States. The clean up continues even now and is related to the attempt to convert Kellogg into a fine resort by cleaning up the disaster that was Kellogg, Idaho, previously. One thing I never understood is why a consultant they hired to suggest what they should do, suggested a Bavarian theme for the town. There were so many Italians in Kellogg: Faracas, Pechias, Damianos, Puccis, Rinaldis, Biottis, and others, I would have thought an Italian theme would have been more appropriate. Perhaps this is one reason the Bavarian theme has not been very successful. Kellogg did almost die and it is now undergoing a kind of rebirth. What is unfortunate for Weston, although certainly not her fault, is that the truly “good times” were mostly dead by the time she was born (1943). Kellogg and Wallace, at the turn of the century and into the 20’s and 30’s were genuine boom towns, far more exciting and colorful than anything that came later. She seems to have overlooked a wealth of “old timers” who still survive and could have told her much more. But of course one cannot have and do everything.
This is, I think, kind of a strange book. The subtitle would lead you to believe it is about “Life, Death, and Rebirth in an Idaho Mining Town.” It is a bit about a mining town, but then it becomes more about going down into the Bunker Hill Mine (on a tour), and then, before you fully realize it, it becomes an autobiographical account of a girl going through Elementary and High School in Kellogg, Idaho, during the 50’s and 60’s. Then, at the end, there is a bit about the town reviving itself and its economy by attempting to become an all-season skiing and golfing resort. This is not to say it is a book without merit or interest, it is just not exactly what it seems.
Ms. Weston was born in Kellogg and went through High School there. She discusses this at some length, playing in the school band, giving up the flute to become a majorette, the football and basketball games, the flirtations, first kiss, first boy friend, fights with her father, and so on. This was a life probably not much different than schoolgirls that age everywhere. The fact that her father was a respected doctor, who was also a musician with a drinking problem, does make it perhaps more interesting than most. He not only had a drinking problem, when drinking he was also very abusive to his wife and children. He apparently was a fine doctor, did not drink when on duty, and was well-liked by the community, the stuff of a small town where everyone knows everyone else. People in such places tend to understand and forgive the problems of their peers.
Weston’s account of being taken down into the Bunker Hill Mine, as much as a mile underground, is both interesting and compelling as a description of what life was like for hard rock miners in North Idaho. She obviously had an ear for the language and writes her account to give the impression she knows more than she probably does (she was in reality little more than an insightful tourist). Her account of the famous brothels of Kellogg and Wallace, Idaho, also suffers from an imperfect knowledge of those institutions. For example, she offers what is purported to be a “menu” for one of the brothels, suggesting different charges for different sexual activities. I am quite certain that no such “menu” ever existed before one of the brothels was converted into a tourist attraction, and I doubt that most of the miners and muckers I knew in Wallace even would have understood what some of the items meant. What was undoubtedly true was that her father inspected the prostitutes regularly to insure they were free of diseases (just like an army, it would not do to have the miners infected and unable to work).
The account of mining, the procedures and their inherent dangers, is well described, and her description of the 1972 underground fire that killed 91 men makes the point dramatically. Her description of living in Kellogg where the polluting waste piled deeper each year, the air was foul, the trees and vegetation disappeared, the “Lead creek” (the Coeur d’ Alene river), filthy with mine waste and garbage ran through the center of town, and many children suffered from far too much lead in their bodies, reminds us of just how much people are willing to tolerate for jobs and security. Interestingly, she does not mention what we called “the con,” the lung disease that many of the miners almost inevitably contracted after long years in the mine.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is her discussion of the miners’ strike that ended in 1960 with the replacement of a national union with a local one, all because of the pathological anti-communism of the 50’s that lingered on in Kellogg even after McCarthy had been discredited. This obsession with communism was so strong it captured the entire city, where they saw communists everywhere. It seemed to be so strong that even whatever few might not have believed it kept their opinions to themselves. I suspect this fear of communism was not unique to Kellogg and probably existed more or less in most of the small North Idaho communities (and seems to linger in some even to the present day). In Kellogg and Wallace this was no doubt related to the history of violent miners’ strikes around the turn of the century, strikes that were the result of the socialist movements of that time that resulted in the assassination of one of the Idaho Governors and the blowing up of the Bunker Hill.
I believe Weston has written an interesting book, it certainly should be of interest to anyone not familiar with the mining districts of Idaho and life in one of the most polluted areas in the United States. The clean up continues even now and is related to the attempt to convert Kellogg into a fine resort by cleaning up the disaster that was Kellogg, Idaho, previously. One thing I never understood is why a consultant they hired to suggest what they should do, suggested a Bavarian theme for the town. There were so many Italians in Kellogg: Faracas, Pechias, Damianos, Puccis, Rinaldis, Biottis, and others, I would have thought an Italian theme would have been more appropriate. Perhaps this is one reason the Bavarian theme has not been very successful. Kellogg did almost die and it is now undergoing a kind of rebirth. What is unfortunate for Weston, although certainly not her fault, is that the truly “good times” were mostly dead by the time she was born (1943). Kellogg and Wallace, at the turn of the century and into the 20’s and 30’s were genuine boom towns, far more exciting and colorful than anything that came later. She seems to have overlooked a wealth of “old timers” who still survive and could have told her much more. But of course one cannot have and do everything.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
The Journey to the West 20
Since I quit writing about my journey to the west some time ago (19) I have been trying to decide whether or not to continue. Of course your journey westward continues whether you write about it or not, and so mine does. I am hesitant to continue because my life from this time on contains many unpleasant aspects, some shameful, some outright stupid, some perhaps unforgivable, and few very positive or rewarding. I am not eager to admit to or discuss this part of my life and I am not at all certain how honest I can be about my life from this point onward. But for the moment, at least, I have decided to continue.
When I returned to the University of Idaho my living conditions changed. For reasons I do not recall very well I lived in what was known as “Ma Brogan’s Boarding House.” Ma Brogan was the mother of Johnny Brogan who had been a standout High School quarterback in Coeur d’ Alene and who had been recruited to play for the University. I assume that somehow the Boarding House must have been part of the deal although I do not know that for certain. I do know it didn’t last much longer than Johnny Brogan. I guess the only reason I was accepted there was because I still wanted to share quarters with Leonard Walker (although we had nothing in common except coming from Wallace High School), so when he decided to live there I just went along. This was a bit strange as I was the only “non jock” in the place. I don’t remember how many athletes lived there but it must have been somewhere between 20 and 30, mostly two to a room. The rooms were all upstairs in this large building, right in the center of the campus, the restaurant where we took our meals was downstairs. Ma Brogan was the cook and obviously in charge of everything. She was a very nice lady.
I don’t remember if Leonard and his brother Norman, both on the boxing team, were the only boxers living there. I believe they probably were. The other residents were a mixed bag of football and basketball players, mostly recruited from the South, but a couple from Southern Idaho. They were all far from academically inclined. The two I remember most vividly were basketball players, one, Stacy Howells, was part Indian, his roomate’s name I cannot remember. I think they were both from Oklahoma. They both chewed tobacco, so they spread the floor of their room with newspaper, set out a couple of large cans, and spit constantly. Every week or so they would change the newspaper and begin again. They rarely attended classes, preferring instead to play a pinball machine in the restaurant, sometimes for hours at a time. Most of the other residents were football players, big awkward linemen for the most part, and not in the least interested in school outside of playing football. Although I was not the greatest student, I was at least interested in books, reading, attending classes (sometimes), and learning at least some of the subject matter. I still refused to attend ROTC classes and knew I would never graduate. Why all these jocks put up with me I am not sure but I became friends with many of them and in some cases eventually helped a couple of them with their assignments.
Leonard was a truly fine amateur boxer, one of the standouts of the team. But he always had trouble making his weight. I think he fought at 135 pounds but when not in training would balloon to about 150. To make his weight he drank a raw egg in a class of orange juice for breakfast, chewed gum and spit a lot, ran up and down stairs, trained religiously, and so on. He was dedicated and went on to win a national championship. His brother, Norman, didn’t seem to have as much trouble making his weight and was also a fine amateur fighter who achieved almost as much in the ring as his brother. At this time the University of Idaho was a boxing powerhouse on the national scene, five of the eight positions on the team were held at one time by fighters from Burke and Wallace: Herb Carlson (also a national champion), Leonard and Norman Walker, Bobby Rivera, and Rex Foreman. I don’t recall if they ever won a national championship outright, but I know they tied for it one year, I think maybe with Michigan or Michigan State. As far as I know boxing is no longer a High School or College sport but in the 1940’s and 50’s it was pretty common. Frank Young was the boxing coach at that time.
I continued my erratic process of doing well in courses I liked and not so well in those I didn’t like. I took classes in psychology and sociology, subjects I had never heard of in Wallace High School. I also took Anthropology and Philosophy courses I had never heard of in High School. I did not do so well in required courses like zoology, math, and physics. I remember being very impressed by one Philosophy teacher, Dr. Moore, but as he was a superior teacher he soon left the University of Idaho for a better position. Another philosophy teacher was a Mr. Seamen who apparently had failed his Ph.D. exams somewhere but taught aesthetics and ethics. I liked him personally, but he was a strange one, about 6’ 3” tall, wearing a large black opera cape his wife had made for him, and not as effective a teacher as Moore. Getting ahead of myself, I took correspondence courses from him later when I was in the army. As far as I know he never received his Ph.D. and years later, after I had achieved that honor, and was teaching at the University of Washington, he was apparently so desperate he visited me to see if I could help him get a position there. I felt bad for him but, of course, I could not help him). I also remember a Mr. Cushman (Dr.?) who taught a course in Great Books. I loved it and did extremely well. My Anthropology Professor was Dr. Alfred Bowers. He was not very inspirational but I loved the subject matter. I took courses in Psychology from William (“Butch”) Boyer who was the head of the department, as well as from a couple of other Psychology Profs. Eventually I was to major in Psychology, so more on that later. I did not distinguish myself during this year but I did well enough to know I could return.
The atmosphere in the boarding house was, shall I say, much more “raunchy” than intellectual. I lived there only this one year.
When I returned to the University of Idaho my living conditions changed. For reasons I do not recall very well I lived in what was known as “Ma Brogan’s Boarding House.” Ma Brogan was the mother of Johnny Brogan who had been a standout High School quarterback in Coeur d’ Alene and who had been recruited to play for the University. I assume that somehow the Boarding House must have been part of the deal although I do not know that for certain. I do know it didn’t last much longer than Johnny Brogan. I guess the only reason I was accepted there was because I still wanted to share quarters with Leonard Walker (although we had nothing in common except coming from Wallace High School), so when he decided to live there I just went along. This was a bit strange as I was the only “non jock” in the place. I don’t remember how many athletes lived there but it must have been somewhere between 20 and 30, mostly two to a room. The rooms were all upstairs in this large building, right in the center of the campus, the restaurant where we took our meals was downstairs. Ma Brogan was the cook and obviously in charge of everything. She was a very nice lady.
I don’t remember if Leonard and his brother Norman, both on the boxing team, were the only boxers living there. I believe they probably were. The other residents were a mixed bag of football and basketball players, mostly recruited from the South, but a couple from Southern Idaho. They were all far from academically inclined. The two I remember most vividly were basketball players, one, Stacy Howells, was part Indian, his roomate’s name I cannot remember. I think they were both from Oklahoma. They both chewed tobacco, so they spread the floor of their room with newspaper, set out a couple of large cans, and spit constantly. Every week or so they would change the newspaper and begin again. They rarely attended classes, preferring instead to play a pinball machine in the restaurant, sometimes for hours at a time. Most of the other residents were football players, big awkward linemen for the most part, and not in the least interested in school outside of playing football. Although I was not the greatest student, I was at least interested in books, reading, attending classes (sometimes), and learning at least some of the subject matter. I still refused to attend ROTC classes and knew I would never graduate. Why all these jocks put up with me I am not sure but I became friends with many of them and in some cases eventually helped a couple of them with their assignments.
Leonard was a truly fine amateur boxer, one of the standouts of the team. But he always had trouble making his weight. I think he fought at 135 pounds but when not in training would balloon to about 150. To make his weight he drank a raw egg in a class of orange juice for breakfast, chewed gum and spit a lot, ran up and down stairs, trained religiously, and so on. He was dedicated and went on to win a national championship. His brother, Norman, didn’t seem to have as much trouble making his weight and was also a fine amateur fighter who achieved almost as much in the ring as his brother. At this time the University of Idaho was a boxing powerhouse on the national scene, five of the eight positions on the team were held at one time by fighters from Burke and Wallace: Herb Carlson (also a national champion), Leonard and Norman Walker, Bobby Rivera, and Rex Foreman. I don’t recall if they ever won a national championship outright, but I know they tied for it one year, I think maybe with Michigan or Michigan State. As far as I know boxing is no longer a High School or College sport but in the 1940’s and 50’s it was pretty common. Frank Young was the boxing coach at that time.
I continued my erratic process of doing well in courses I liked and not so well in those I didn’t like. I took classes in psychology and sociology, subjects I had never heard of in Wallace High School. I also took Anthropology and Philosophy courses I had never heard of in High School. I did not do so well in required courses like zoology, math, and physics. I remember being very impressed by one Philosophy teacher, Dr. Moore, but as he was a superior teacher he soon left the University of Idaho for a better position. Another philosophy teacher was a Mr. Seamen who apparently had failed his Ph.D. exams somewhere but taught aesthetics and ethics. I liked him personally, but he was a strange one, about 6’ 3” tall, wearing a large black opera cape his wife had made for him, and not as effective a teacher as Moore. Getting ahead of myself, I took correspondence courses from him later when I was in the army. As far as I know he never received his Ph.D. and years later, after I had achieved that honor, and was teaching at the University of Washington, he was apparently so desperate he visited me to see if I could help him get a position there. I felt bad for him but, of course, I could not help him). I also remember a Mr. Cushman (Dr.?) who taught a course in Great Books. I loved it and did extremely well. My Anthropology Professor was Dr. Alfred Bowers. He was not very inspirational but I loved the subject matter. I took courses in Psychology from William (“Butch”) Boyer who was the head of the department, as well as from a couple of other Psychology Profs. Eventually I was to major in Psychology, so more on that later. I did not distinguish myself during this year but I did well enough to know I could return.
The atmosphere in the boarding house was, shall I say, much more “raunchy” than intellectual. I lived there only this one year.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Here We Go Again
Would be credit union robber
mumbles, fumbles, stumbles,
drops gun and flees.
Here we go again. Now we want to put missile defenses in Rumania, ostensibly to protect Europe from potential missile attacks from Iran. Russia is concerned again, just as they were over our attempt to put such defenses in Poland, and rightly so as near as I can tell. One might well ask, what missile attacks? Does anyone really believe that Iran is going to start firing missiles at Europe or Russia or anywhere else for that matter? What on earth is the matter with us? We seem to keep insisting that Iran is some terrible threat to us, Europe, Israel, or presumably even Iceland or Tasmania. I repeat myself, why would Iran with a military budget one (1) percent of ours, and far less than Israel’s or most any other major country, want to start firing missiles at anyone and thus bring about their inevitable demise? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can only conclude from our recent build-up in the Persian Gulf, and now this, that we are deliberately trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will give us an excuse to start yet another “war.” I guess now that we are (presumably) going to get out of Iraq, and Russia is no longer considered a mortal threat, we don’t dare attack China, and we can’t attack Saudi Arabia or anywhere else where we have to get oil (like Venezuela, Mexico or Canada), we have to make certain we have another “enemy” threatening us and Iran fits the bill. Without such an enemy how could we possibly continue to justify bloated defense and Pentagon budgets that exist for little reason other than maintaining our absurd military/industrial/political complex and thus fattening the already obscenely fat cats that demand it? This belief that Iran is a threat to the world is obviously just manufactured and promoted for no other reason as it has no basis in reality. Let me repeat it again, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world. There is no evidence they are anywhere near building a nuclear bomb, nor do they have enough missiles to make them a serious threat to the world. They have not attacked anyone for more than 200 years, the Iranian people admire the U.S., and if Israel and the U.S. would stop threatening to bomb them they would most probably be happy to negotiate whatever it is that needs to be negotiated (but obviously they are not going to negotiate a regime change with us). This whole business with Iran is stupid beyond belief.
And speaking of stupid, I see that our country continues to muddle along with a political system so absurd it ought to be the subject of a comic book. In what is supposed to be a democratic system nothing can happen in Washington because of threatened filibusters. That is, the majority does not rule in this democracy, instead there must be 60 votes out of 100 to get anything done and the Republicans have 41 votes and threaten to filibuster everything. For some unfathomable reason the Democrats refuse to use their 51 vote majority to overturn this ridiculous situation and so the stalemate continues. If that is not stupid enough, it turns out that one Senator (in this case Richard Shelby) can single-handedly hold up not one appointment, but all appointments the President wishes to make. This is democracy at work? And what makes this worse is that the hold-ups have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifications of any of these appointments, but, rather, with the fact that Shelby wants a bunch of money for some project or other in Alabama, in other words, a kind of legal blackmail. And don’t forget that our Supreme Court has now insisted that corporations are actually persons and are allowed to contribute as much money as they wish to influence politics, which for all practical purposes means that no one but the corporations will be able to determine who the candidates will be, who will be elected, and what they will be allowed to do once elected. This is not a whole lot different from what happens now, but they are so much in charge now they feel they can be perfectly open about it, come out of the closet as it were.
LKBIQ:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin
TILT:
Cinnamon is native to Sri Lanka and was imported into Egypt as early as 2000 B.C.
mumbles, fumbles, stumbles,
drops gun and flees.
Here we go again. Now we want to put missile defenses in Rumania, ostensibly to protect Europe from potential missile attacks from Iran. Russia is concerned again, just as they were over our attempt to put such defenses in Poland, and rightly so as near as I can tell. One might well ask, what missile attacks? Does anyone really believe that Iran is going to start firing missiles at Europe or Russia or anywhere else for that matter? What on earth is the matter with us? We seem to keep insisting that Iran is some terrible threat to us, Europe, Israel, or presumably even Iceland or Tasmania. I repeat myself, why would Iran with a military budget one (1) percent of ours, and far less than Israel’s or most any other major country, want to start firing missiles at anyone and thus bring about their inevitable demise? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can only conclude from our recent build-up in the Persian Gulf, and now this, that we are deliberately trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will give us an excuse to start yet another “war.” I guess now that we are (presumably) going to get out of Iraq, and Russia is no longer considered a mortal threat, we don’t dare attack China, and we can’t attack Saudi Arabia or anywhere else where we have to get oil (like Venezuela, Mexico or Canada), we have to make certain we have another “enemy” threatening us and Iran fits the bill. Without such an enemy how could we possibly continue to justify bloated defense and Pentagon budgets that exist for little reason other than maintaining our absurd military/industrial/political complex and thus fattening the already obscenely fat cats that demand it? This belief that Iran is a threat to the world is obviously just manufactured and promoted for no other reason as it has no basis in reality. Let me repeat it again, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. or the rest of the world. There is no evidence they are anywhere near building a nuclear bomb, nor do they have enough missiles to make them a serious threat to the world. They have not attacked anyone for more than 200 years, the Iranian people admire the U.S., and if Israel and the U.S. would stop threatening to bomb them they would most probably be happy to negotiate whatever it is that needs to be negotiated (but obviously they are not going to negotiate a regime change with us). This whole business with Iran is stupid beyond belief.
And speaking of stupid, I see that our country continues to muddle along with a political system so absurd it ought to be the subject of a comic book. In what is supposed to be a democratic system nothing can happen in Washington because of threatened filibusters. That is, the majority does not rule in this democracy, instead there must be 60 votes out of 100 to get anything done and the Republicans have 41 votes and threaten to filibuster everything. For some unfathomable reason the Democrats refuse to use their 51 vote majority to overturn this ridiculous situation and so the stalemate continues. If that is not stupid enough, it turns out that one Senator (in this case Richard Shelby) can single-handedly hold up not one appointment, but all appointments the President wishes to make. This is democracy at work? And what makes this worse is that the hold-ups have nothing whatsoever to do with the qualifications of any of these appointments, but, rather, with the fact that Shelby wants a bunch of money for some project or other in Alabama, in other words, a kind of legal blackmail. And don’t forget that our Supreme Court has now insisted that corporations are actually persons and are allowed to contribute as much money as they wish to influence politics, which for all practical purposes means that no one but the corporations will be able to determine who the candidates will be, who will be elected, and what they will be allowed to do once elected. This is not a whole lot different from what happens now, but they are so much in charge now they feel they can be perfectly open about it, come out of the closet as it were.
LKBIQ:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
David Brin
TILT:
Cinnamon is native to Sri Lanka and was imported into Egypt as early as 2000 B.C.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Too Big to Succeed?
Man with 75 bottles of
shoplifted body lotion stuffed
in pants fails to elude police.
Common sense fails again. A nine year old New York boy brought a 2 inch plastic machine gun from a Lego figure to school, was pulled from lunch and berated by his school principal. This kind of idiocy is more common than you think (see Morialekafa 10-12-09).
It seems the Republicans are lining up on the side of the banks and corporations against the people. Why this should surprise anyone I do not know as they have always been on the side of business against the people. Besides, after the recent outrageous decision by the Supreme Court, essentially turning the country over to corporate rule, they know enough to cling to the winning side.
Thinking about the banks and corporations has made me begin to think about the phrase “to big to fail.” It occurs to me that is basically meaningless unless one defines what it is to “fail.” I guess in the case of banks it means to run out of money to conduct their business as it is supposed to be conducted. And it is assumed that their business is simply to loan money at interest to help people and businesses get started and prosper. But if the goal of the banking industry is, say, to make money for their employees and the huge corporations they finance, they succeeded spectacularly, as many of them could easily retire after one year of bonuses, the corporations flourished, and in the end the taxpayers bailed them out. Obviously failure is in the eyes of the beholder. This is not a very good example. Think about it from a different perspective, “too big to succeed.”
If there are things too big to fail, are there things too big to succeed? I would say yes, there are. For example, Hitler’s attempt to conquer Russia during WWII was too big to succeed. For anyone to try to invade and conquer China would be something too big to succeed. But what about more reasonable examples, say, corporate agriculture. Corporate farming is big, very big, and it purportedly produces food much cheaper than old-fashioned farming methods. In that sense it has succeeded. However, it succeeds only by more quickly destroying the land, and by the use of chemicals and genetic techniques that in the long run have adverse effects. It also contributes to unemployment in that one farmer can do the work of what a great many had to do in the past. In this sense it is too big to succeed, if the goal is to have a healthy, sustainable agriculture over time. This is true of all huge corporations because they make their profits importantly by reducing the amount of labor required and therefore result in surplus populations that become a great social problem. While there are benefits to be gained by large scale enterprises, an idea widespread in American affairs for a long time now, there are also deleterious effects of scale that have been ignored. If unemployment, health problems, surplus populations, adequate housing, health care, equitable rewards, the environment, and other such factors were taken into account, it would probably be the case that, depending upon the task at hand, there are probably ideal sizes for various industries and corporations. It should be at least theoretically possible to determine how any given enterprise should be conducted to maximize benefits for all concerned and minimize questionable by-products and unanticipated problems. Of course no capitalistic society, where profit is the primary motive, operates this way. Any suggestion that it should is immediately shouted down as some kind of horrible socialistic or communistic plot, and so capitalistic societies continue on in a kind of cannibalistic orgy in which the strong, or the wealthy, consume their weaker, poorer cousins until such time as the situation becomes so bad it is forced by its own excesses to change. This is what happened around the beginning of the 20th century and it appears it may happen again before much longer.
Capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, is a perfect example of something too big to succeed. There was no capitalism in our former small scale “primitive” or “folk” societies, where human relations were more personal, face-to-face, based upon ties of kin and place, and not regulated by legal contracts between strangers. There were no surplus populations, little or no crime, few, if any orphans, and when one ate, everyone ate. Idyllic no, but societies survived like that for thousands of years, it is unlikely that capitalism will do the same.
LKBIQ:
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
TILT:
Only New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand do not have native shrews.
shoplifted body lotion stuffed
in pants fails to elude police.
Common sense fails again. A nine year old New York boy brought a 2 inch plastic machine gun from a Lego figure to school, was pulled from lunch and berated by his school principal. This kind of idiocy is more common than you think (see Morialekafa 10-12-09).
It seems the Republicans are lining up on the side of the banks and corporations against the people. Why this should surprise anyone I do not know as they have always been on the side of business against the people. Besides, after the recent outrageous decision by the Supreme Court, essentially turning the country over to corporate rule, they know enough to cling to the winning side.
Thinking about the banks and corporations has made me begin to think about the phrase “to big to fail.” It occurs to me that is basically meaningless unless one defines what it is to “fail.” I guess in the case of banks it means to run out of money to conduct their business as it is supposed to be conducted. And it is assumed that their business is simply to loan money at interest to help people and businesses get started and prosper. But if the goal of the banking industry is, say, to make money for their employees and the huge corporations they finance, they succeeded spectacularly, as many of them could easily retire after one year of bonuses, the corporations flourished, and in the end the taxpayers bailed them out. Obviously failure is in the eyes of the beholder. This is not a very good example. Think about it from a different perspective, “too big to succeed.”
If there are things too big to fail, are there things too big to succeed? I would say yes, there are. For example, Hitler’s attempt to conquer Russia during WWII was too big to succeed. For anyone to try to invade and conquer China would be something too big to succeed. But what about more reasonable examples, say, corporate agriculture. Corporate farming is big, very big, and it purportedly produces food much cheaper than old-fashioned farming methods. In that sense it has succeeded. However, it succeeds only by more quickly destroying the land, and by the use of chemicals and genetic techniques that in the long run have adverse effects. It also contributes to unemployment in that one farmer can do the work of what a great many had to do in the past. In this sense it is too big to succeed, if the goal is to have a healthy, sustainable agriculture over time. This is true of all huge corporations because they make their profits importantly by reducing the amount of labor required and therefore result in surplus populations that become a great social problem. While there are benefits to be gained by large scale enterprises, an idea widespread in American affairs for a long time now, there are also deleterious effects of scale that have been ignored. If unemployment, health problems, surplus populations, adequate housing, health care, equitable rewards, the environment, and other such factors were taken into account, it would probably be the case that, depending upon the task at hand, there are probably ideal sizes for various industries and corporations. It should be at least theoretically possible to determine how any given enterprise should be conducted to maximize benefits for all concerned and minimize questionable by-products and unanticipated problems. Of course no capitalistic society, where profit is the primary motive, operates this way. Any suggestion that it should is immediately shouted down as some kind of horrible socialistic or communistic plot, and so capitalistic societies continue on in a kind of cannibalistic orgy in which the strong, or the wealthy, consume their weaker, poorer cousins until such time as the situation becomes so bad it is forced by its own excesses to change. This is what happened around the beginning of the 20th century and it appears it may happen again before much longer.
Capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism, is a perfect example of something too big to succeed. There was no capitalism in our former small scale “primitive” or “folk” societies, where human relations were more personal, face-to-face, based upon ties of kin and place, and not regulated by legal contracts between strangers. There were no surplus populations, little or no crime, few, if any orphans, and when one ate, everyone ate. Idyllic no, but societies survived like that for thousands of years, it is unlikely that capitalism will do the same.
LKBIQ:
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
TILT:
Only New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand do not have native shrews.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Sex, Lies, and...More Lies
Upset when gas pump is
turned off, man drives SUV
through plate glass window.
You may think I have abandoned my hobby, “Collecting Sex Advice for Women from the Covers of Women’s Magazines,” but you would be wrong. It’s the greatest hobby I’ve ever had. First, it costs absolutely nothing (I have to go to the Supermarket anyway). Second, it’s easy (all you have to do is read the covers). Third it’s titillating (would be a lot more titillating if I actually read any of these articles but I have a rule against that, it keeps me from foolishly ever buying one of them). Fourth, you don’t have to work on it every day, or even every week, as the magazines come out only once a month). There is only one minor problem in that it is difficult to restrict the domain. That is, virtually all Women’s magazines deal with things like having sexy hair, sexy bodies, sexy arms, sexy legs, sexy smiles, sexy eyes, sexy dresses, sexy sandals, and so on and on (I still haven’t seen any claims for sexy feet). Thus if you are not really disciplined you end up with a never ending supply of material. You have to stick with the real nitty gritty sex. This month, for example, there are three articles in Cosmopolitan that clearly are collectible (Cosmopolitan seems to be significantly more interested in the topic of sex than other similar magazines): “99 Sex Moves, Sweet and Slow, Quick and Dirty, and Everything in Between,” “The Hour Men Crave Sex Most,” and “Unleash Your Cheeks, Why Guys Stopped Loving the Thong” (this might be somewhat borderline). I submit these all meet the basic criteria for my hobby. Women’s Health offers “Make Good Sex Great, 15 Scorching Foreplay Moves to Try Tonight.” Redbook offers “Sex Every Night? What 2000 Women Desire in Bed – and What They’re Really Doing.” Glamour, not to be left behind, offered, “101 Things No One Tells You About Guys, Their Sex Desires, Their Body Hang-ups, and the Real Reasons They Cheat.” Self Magazine gives us “More Pleasure in Bed, Maximize Your Fun and His (But Mostly Yours).” The sum total of this seems to indicate that American women may be obsessively interested in sex. This is probably just as well, as American men appear to be obsessively interested in the same thing. Wow, what a revelation! Now with Viagra and Cialis and other aids they can pursue it virtually full time.
But enough of sex and hobbies, let’s turn to more serious matters, like saying stupid things and lying. I suppose you are aware that Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA, has predicted we will have an attempted terrorist attack within 3 to 6 months. Wow, run for your bomb shelters (if you still have one), the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming! What kind of prediction is this? I could just as easily have predicted it. And as we apparently have such attacks regularly (even though we don’t always hear about them) this would seem to be a sure thing. So thanks Panetta for telling us the obvious. They just can’t get along without that constant element of fear that makes us behave just as they want us to.
As far as the lying goes, when it comes to Republicans it just never stops. If you watch the Rachel Maddow show (the best show on television that should be required watching) you were treated this evening to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine telling the most outrageous lies about Obama’s terrorism policies. They were castigating Obama for doing precisely the same thing with terrorists the Bush/Cheney administration did some 300 times. Now why would they do such a thing? It seems to me there are only three possibilities: (1) they were unaware of this, (2) they were aware but just lied, or (3) they honestly forgot about it. If you believe either 1 or 3 they are either ignorant of what transpired in the Bush/Cheney administration (in which case they are seriously incompetent), or they suffer from serious memory lapses that should probably disqualify them from holding important offices in government. If you find these unacceptable you must conclude they were deliberately lying (which, I believe, they were). It seems there is no lie so outrageous or ridiculous the Republicans won’t use it to attempt to discredit our President. It is sad, really, that what used to be a pretty reasonable political party, has now become little more than a criminal conspiracy dedicated to overthrowing our elected President and once again taking control of our country in the name of greed and short term profit. Just like Capone, they have bought the judges, including the Supreme Court, Congresspersons and Senators, and are well on their way to succeeding. The only thing standing in their way is a Black and White President on a great white stallion temporarily slowing them down. The showdown at the corral is just beginning and the stakes are very high indeed. Paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln somewhat carelessly, Can our nation survive 90% slave (Proletariat) and 10% Bourgeoisie? Unless something happens quickly we will soon have no choice in the matter. All hail Corporate Masters, Excellencies, Royal Highnesses, Kings of Kings, God’s representatives on earth doing God’s work (they say).
LKBIQ:
To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
Friedrich Nietzsche
TILT:
The first carousel in the United States was in Ohio in 1840.
turned off, man drives SUV
through plate glass window.
You may think I have abandoned my hobby, “Collecting Sex Advice for Women from the Covers of Women’s Magazines,” but you would be wrong. It’s the greatest hobby I’ve ever had. First, it costs absolutely nothing (I have to go to the Supermarket anyway). Second, it’s easy (all you have to do is read the covers). Third it’s titillating (would be a lot more titillating if I actually read any of these articles but I have a rule against that, it keeps me from foolishly ever buying one of them). Fourth, you don’t have to work on it every day, or even every week, as the magazines come out only once a month). There is only one minor problem in that it is difficult to restrict the domain. That is, virtually all Women’s magazines deal with things like having sexy hair, sexy bodies, sexy arms, sexy legs, sexy smiles, sexy eyes, sexy dresses, sexy sandals, and so on and on (I still haven’t seen any claims for sexy feet). Thus if you are not really disciplined you end up with a never ending supply of material. You have to stick with the real nitty gritty sex. This month, for example, there are three articles in Cosmopolitan that clearly are collectible (Cosmopolitan seems to be significantly more interested in the topic of sex than other similar magazines): “99 Sex Moves, Sweet and Slow, Quick and Dirty, and Everything in Between,” “The Hour Men Crave Sex Most,” and “Unleash Your Cheeks, Why Guys Stopped Loving the Thong” (this might be somewhat borderline). I submit these all meet the basic criteria for my hobby. Women’s Health offers “Make Good Sex Great, 15 Scorching Foreplay Moves to Try Tonight.” Redbook offers “Sex Every Night? What 2000 Women Desire in Bed – and What They’re Really Doing.” Glamour, not to be left behind, offered, “101 Things No One Tells You About Guys, Their Sex Desires, Their Body Hang-ups, and the Real Reasons They Cheat.” Self Magazine gives us “More Pleasure in Bed, Maximize Your Fun and His (But Mostly Yours).” The sum total of this seems to indicate that American women may be obsessively interested in sex. This is probably just as well, as American men appear to be obsessively interested in the same thing. Wow, what a revelation! Now with Viagra and Cialis and other aids they can pursue it virtually full time.
But enough of sex and hobbies, let’s turn to more serious matters, like saying stupid things and lying. I suppose you are aware that Leon Panetta, the current head of the CIA, has predicted we will have an attempted terrorist attack within 3 to 6 months. Wow, run for your bomb shelters (if you still have one), the terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming! What kind of prediction is this? I could just as easily have predicted it. And as we apparently have such attacks regularly (even though we don’t always hear about them) this would seem to be a sure thing. So thanks Panetta for telling us the obvious. They just can’t get along without that constant element of fear that makes us behave just as they want us to.
As far as the lying goes, when it comes to Republicans it just never stops. If you watch the Rachel Maddow show (the best show on television that should be required watching) you were treated this evening to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine telling the most outrageous lies about Obama’s terrorism policies. They were castigating Obama for doing precisely the same thing with terrorists the Bush/Cheney administration did some 300 times. Now why would they do such a thing? It seems to me there are only three possibilities: (1) they were unaware of this, (2) they were aware but just lied, or (3) they honestly forgot about it. If you believe either 1 or 3 they are either ignorant of what transpired in the Bush/Cheney administration (in which case they are seriously incompetent), or they suffer from serious memory lapses that should probably disqualify them from holding important offices in government. If you find these unacceptable you must conclude they were deliberately lying (which, I believe, they were). It seems there is no lie so outrageous or ridiculous the Republicans won’t use it to attempt to discredit our President. It is sad, really, that what used to be a pretty reasonable political party, has now become little more than a criminal conspiracy dedicated to overthrowing our elected President and once again taking control of our country in the name of greed and short term profit. Just like Capone, they have bought the judges, including the Supreme Court, Congresspersons and Senators, and are well on their way to succeeding. The only thing standing in their way is a Black and White President on a great white stallion temporarily slowing them down. The showdown at the corral is just beginning and the stakes are very high indeed. Paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln somewhat carelessly, Can our nation survive 90% slave (Proletariat) and 10% Bourgeoisie? Unless something happens quickly we will soon have no choice in the matter. All hail Corporate Masters, Excellencies, Royal Highnesses, Kings of Kings, God’s representatives on earth doing God’s work (they say).
LKBIQ:
To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
Friedrich Nietzsche
TILT:
The first carousel in the United States was in Ohio in 1840.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Republicans Exposed
Swedish man terrifies
ex-wife by pushing mice
through her mail slot.
Now that President Obama has decided to go on the attack there can be no further doubt about what the Republicans are trying to do, and it is ugly. They have clung obstinately to their plan to just say no to anything and everything Obama wishes to do. Perhaps if these were things Obama wished to do for himself there might be some justification for this treasonous, or near treasonous behavior on the part of Republicans, but these are things he is trying to do for our country, for us. Plans for universal health care, saving the economy, creating jobs, improving education, rebuilding superstructure, consumer protection, ending don’t ask, don’t tell, and so on. But still, at every attempt he is met with resistance. As Obama has made clear in the past few days, even things Republicans themselves were for, when he agrees and wants to do them, they become opposed. There can be no explanation for this other than that they wish him to fail (and our country with him). One might hope that now that they have been exposed they might decide to become more cooperative, but don’t bet on it. As Obama has also pointed out, they have demonized him to the point where they probably can’t change now without looking ridiculous. They are now trapped by their own greed, lust for power, and stupidity. While Obama recognizes this I’m not so sure the Republican base will pay any attention as they do not appear to think very clearly about anything (if they think at all).
John McCain may be a good case in point. He said previously that if the generals would come out in favor of abolishing don’t ask, don’t tell, he would listen to them. But now that they have done so, he has refused to accept their opinions and threw a petulant fit because they did not ask his permission first. Actually, in McCain’s case, I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. I think he may be going senile. I don’t know how one would explain his terrible lack of judgment in the past couple of years, and his changing positions so erratically if he was the McCain of old. If this is not a case of aging and slipping a bit one would have to conclude he is simply mean-spirited or evil, and I do not like to think that of him (in spite of his attempt to inflict Her Silliness on us because of his egomaniacal drive to become President).
It is still a long time before the 2010 elections. There are many predictions that Republicans will re-take the House of Representative, pick up seats in the Senate, and so on. They believe this will happen because Democrats have just not produced anything of substance (primarily jobs and health care reform). Perhaps they are right, perhaps Republicans will win more seats. But perhaps they won’t. I can understand how people are not happy about the state of our nation, and I can understand how they might wish to take their dissatisfaction out on Democrats, but what I cannot understand is why this would lead them to vote for Republicans. First, much of the problem has been the Republicans, the party of no, who have resisted and blocked any attempt by Obama to bring about meaningful change. In effect they have just ceased participating in governing our nation. Given their record, as well as that of the Democrats, I would understand how someone might prefer to vote for a dead dog or a purple cow, or even Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but certainly not for a Republican (if not a Democrat). Some say it will be incumbents who are at risk, whether Democrat or Republican. This makes perfect sense to me, throw out most or all of the incumbents, but please, please, do not replace them with more of the same. We’ve been doing a lot of outsourcing in recent years, shipping jobs overseas, seeking competent people elsewhere to do our manufacturing and even our services. I suggest we outsource our Congresspersons and Senators, bring in some talent from India, China, Korea, or even Pipelinestan and let them compete in our elections. Running against incumbents they would doubtless win and then perhaps we might actually see some positive changes.
Another change I think may be long overdue is forced retirement of Congresspersons, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. If ordinary people have to retire at 65 or 70, or whenever, why should those in charge of government be allowed to continue on into their senility when they become so feeble they can barely stand? If Supreme Court Justices are given positions of such authority for life, I think we need a more precise definition of “life.” If we can’t seem to agree on just when human life begins (at conception, some unknown time later?), perhaps we could decide when for all practical purposes it ends. Does anyone believe that a Senator or judge at 90 years of age is still as sharp and up-to-date as they were at 40 or 50? It’s like the Senator from Alaska who said the internet was a series of tubes, or Senator Byrd having to be wheeled in to cast his vote. Given that people do live longer than they used to, and given that in general they are in better health at ripe old ages, I still think 70 is probably a good time for them to gracefully retire and write their memoirs. I also think we should take our elections more seriously and perhaps even have some prerequisites for those running for public office (but this is for another time).
LKBIQ:
When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained.
Edward R. Murrow
TILT:
On the Island of New Guinea there were said to be more than 700 separate languages.
ex-wife by pushing mice
through her mail slot.
Now that President Obama has decided to go on the attack there can be no further doubt about what the Republicans are trying to do, and it is ugly. They have clung obstinately to their plan to just say no to anything and everything Obama wishes to do. Perhaps if these were things Obama wished to do for himself there might be some justification for this treasonous, or near treasonous behavior on the part of Republicans, but these are things he is trying to do for our country, for us. Plans for universal health care, saving the economy, creating jobs, improving education, rebuilding superstructure, consumer protection, ending don’t ask, don’t tell, and so on. But still, at every attempt he is met with resistance. As Obama has made clear in the past few days, even things Republicans themselves were for, when he agrees and wants to do them, they become opposed. There can be no explanation for this other than that they wish him to fail (and our country with him). One might hope that now that they have been exposed they might decide to become more cooperative, but don’t bet on it. As Obama has also pointed out, they have demonized him to the point where they probably can’t change now without looking ridiculous. They are now trapped by their own greed, lust for power, and stupidity. While Obama recognizes this I’m not so sure the Republican base will pay any attention as they do not appear to think very clearly about anything (if they think at all).
John McCain may be a good case in point. He said previously that if the generals would come out in favor of abolishing don’t ask, don’t tell, he would listen to them. But now that they have done so, he has refused to accept their opinions and threw a petulant fit because they did not ask his permission first. Actually, in McCain’s case, I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. I think he may be going senile. I don’t know how one would explain his terrible lack of judgment in the past couple of years, and his changing positions so erratically if he was the McCain of old. If this is not a case of aging and slipping a bit one would have to conclude he is simply mean-spirited or evil, and I do not like to think that of him (in spite of his attempt to inflict Her Silliness on us because of his egomaniacal drive to become President).
It is still a long time before the 2010 elections. There are many predictions that Republicans will re-take the House of Representative, pick up seats in the Senate, and so on. They believe this will happen because Democrats have just not produced anything of substance (primarily jobs and health care reform). Perhaps they are right, perhaps Republicans will win more seats. But perhaps they won’t. I can understand how people are not happy about the state of our nation, and I can understand how they might wish to take their dissatisfaction out on Democrats, but what I cannot understand is why this would lead them to vote for Republicans. First, much of the problem has been the Republicans, the party of no, who have resisted and blocked any attempt by Obama to bring about meaningful change. In effect they have just ceased participating in governing our nation. Given their record, as well as that of the Democrats, I would understand how someone might prefer to vote for a dead dog or a purple cow, or even Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but certainly not for a Republican (if not a Democrat). Some say it will be incumbents who are at risk, whether Democrat or Republican. This makes perfect sense to me, throw out most or all of the incumbents, but please, please, do not replace them with more of the same. We’ve been doing a lot of outsourcing in recent years, shipping jobs overseas, seeking competent people elsewhere to do our manufacturing and even our services. I suggest we outsource our Congresspersons and Senators, bring in some talent from India, China, Korea, or even Pipelinestan and let them compete in our elections. Running against incumbents they would doubtless win and then perhaps we might actually see some positive changes.
Another change I think may be long overdue is forced retirement of Congresspersons, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices. If ordinary people have to retire at 65 or 70, or whenever, why should those in charge of government be allowed to continue on into their senility when they become so feeble they can barely stand? If Supreme Court Justices are given positions of such authority for life, I think we need a more precise definition of “life.” If we can’t seem to agree on just when human life begins (at conception, some unknown time later?), perhaps we could decide when for all practical purposes it ends. Does anyone believe that a Senator or judge at 90 years of age is still as sharp and up-to-date as they were at 40 or 50? It’s like the Senator from Alaska who said the internet was a series of tubes, or Senator Byrd having to be wheeled in to cast his vote. Given that people do live longer than they used to, and given that in general they are in better health at ripe old ages, I still think 70 is probably a good time for them to gracefully retire and write their memoirs. I also think we should take our elections more seriously and perhaps even have some prerequisites for those running for public office (but this is for another time).
LKBIQ:
When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained.
Edward R. Murrow
TILT:
On the Island of New Guinea there were said to be more than 700 separate languages.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Fascism!
Malaysian lovers fined
four buffalo and a pig
for illicit affair.
I remind you once again of Mussolini’s concept of fascism (in its simplest form): When corporations and government come together as a single authoritarian party to manage a country (that is not very precise but close enough). If you don’t like that definition, look up fascism in the dictionary or read Mussolini. I believe there is no longer any reasonable doubt that the U.S. is far along in substituting fascism for our democracy. Indeed, the fascists are now so confident of their control over our affairs they believe they can make any outrageous decision they want. Consider that the Supreme Court recently formalized their control by handing down a ruling so outrageous it violated a hundred years of precedent. Corporations can now donate as much money as they wish to political affairs, and as the people cannot possibly match these massive donations their voice will be muted. If that decision was not outrageous enough, a high level judge has now declared that the two lawyers responsible for “legalizing” waterboarding and other forms of torture merely made “a mistake in judgment” rather than any serious violation of the law or constitution, and hence will avoid punishment of any kind. This includes the notorious Yoo, who, apparently when asked if it would be legal for a young man’s testicles to be crushed in front of his parents, replied that it would if that is what the President thought fit (if this is true, Yoo should not be criticized for a mistake in judgment, or even disbarred, he should be confined to an institution for the psychotically deranged).This merely confirms the decision apparently already made by the Obama administration that our (confessed and other) war criminals will not be investigated, prosecuted, or brought to justice; after all, what’s about a million or so innocents dead and four million displaced). If the American people do not rise up soon and demand these outrageous decisions be reversed, and take back their democracy, it may be too late.
And speaking of “The American People,” just who are they? I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle often claim that the American People believe such and such, or want so and so, or are fed up with something or other, and so on. As far as I know Americans have never agreed upon anything, so using the phrase “the American People” is simply nonsensical. When a politician says this it is at best wishful thinking and at worst a flat-out lie. The American People didn’t even agree completely on WWII, and they certainly can’t be said to agree on anything at the moment. I bet if politicians were fined every time they used this silly phrase they would soon stop using it.
Barney Frank, bless him, has come right out and said it, the reason we are broke is because of the “wars.” This has always seemed perfectly obvious to me, but somehow no one ever mentions it, preferring instead other excuses for why we don’t have enough money to do anything useful for ourselves, like health care, education, superstructure, or whatever. And bless Pelosi also for insisting the military cannot be exempt if there is going to be a freeze on funding. Our military budget is so bloated and mostly useless for whatever threats may be coming our way, it should be cut probably at least in half. If we stopped these senseless “wars” and trimmed our military and pentagon budgets we could actually eventually get out of debt and start rebuilding our own economy and country. Obama mentioned common sense the other day, but he doesn’t seem to have any more than anyone else. Of course you rarely hear anyone blame Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy mentioned either, but at least Obama has the good sense to let them expire (I think he has little choice now that our debt is so great).
I think a good example of this apparent lack of sense might be seen at the moment in what is apparently a rather massive buildup of our missiles, missile defenses, and military presence in the Persian Gulf. This is said to be in answer to a potential missile threat from Iran. I am not privy to our intelligence operations or any inside information about national defense, but I believe the threat of an Iranian missile attack is absolute bullshit. If anything our actions are probably designed to provoke Iran into doing something that we can then use as an excuse to start still another “war.” Don’t forget how Bush/Cheney tried to provoke Iraq to do something that would give them an excuse. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, let me say Iranians are not stupid, nor have they attacked anyone for two hundred or more years (can the U.S. say that?). For what conceivable reason would Iran (with a military budget around one percent of ours and nowhere near that of Israel) launch a missile attack against such overwhelming odds, and what would be the purpose? If there are any warmongers in the Middle East they are clearly Israel and the U.S., and as long as Israel is allowed to conduct torture and genocide against the Palestinians, as well as continuing to steal Palestinian land and water, there will never be peace in that part of the world. U.S. Foreign policy under the Obama administration seems to be virtually unchanged from that of Bush/Cheney, and as long as it continues that way we will remain broke and beggarly as well as engaged in permanent “war.”
LKBIQ:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
TILT:
The life span of a Canadian Lynx is 15 to 21 years.
four buffalo and a pig
for illicit affair.
I remind you once again of Mussolini’s concept of fascism (in its simplest form): When corporations and government come together as a single authoritarian party to manage a country (that is not very precise but close enough). If you don’t like that definition, look up fascism in the dictionary or read Mussolini. I believe there is no longer any reasonable doubt that the U.S. is far along in substituting fascism for our democracy. Indeed, the fascists are now so confident of their control over our affairs they believe they can make any outrageous decision they want. Consider that the Supreme Court recently formalized their control by handing down a ruling so outrageous it violated a hundred years of precedent. Corporations can now donate as much money as they wish to political affairs, and as the people cannot possibly match these massive donations their voice will be muted. If that decision was not outrageous enough, a high level judge has now declared that the two lawyers responsible for “legalizing” waterboarding and other forms of torture merely made “a mistake in judgment” rather than any serious violation of the law or constitution, and hence will avoid punishment of any kind. This includes the notorious Yoo, who, apparently when asked if it would be legal for a young man’s testicles to be crushed in front of his parents, replied that it would if that is what the President thought fit (if this is true, Yoo should not be criticized for a mistake in judgment, or even disbarred, he should be confined to an institution for the psychotically deranged).This merely confirms the decision apparently already made by the Obama administration that our (confessed and other) war criminals will not be investigated, prosecuted, or brought to justice; after all, what’s about a million or so innocents dead and four million displaced). If the American people do not rise up soon and demand these outrageous decisions be reversed, and take back their democracy, it may be too late.
And speaking of “The American People,” just who are they? I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle often claim that the American People believe such and such, or want so and so, or are fed up with something or other, and so on. As far as I know Americans have never agreed upon anything, so using the phrase “the American People” is simply nonsensical. When a politician says this it is at best wishful thinking and at worst a flat-out lie. The American People didn’t even agree completely on WWII, and they certainly can’t be said to agree on anything at the moment. I bet if politicians were fined every time they used this silly phrase they would soon stop using it.
Barney Frank, bless him, has come right out and said it, the reason we are broke is because of the “wars.” This has always seemed perfectly obvious to me, but somehow no one ever mentions it, preferring instead other excuses for why we don’t have enough money to do anything useful for ourselves, like health care, education, superstructure, or whatever. And bless Pelosi also for insisting the military cannot be exempt if there is going to be a freeze on funding. Our military budget is so bloated and mostly useless for whatever threats may be coming our way, it should be cut probably at least in half. If we stopped these senseless “wars” and trimmed our military and pentagon budgets we could actually eventually get out of debt and start rebuilding our own economy and country. Obama mentioned common sense the other day, but he doesn’t seem to have any more than anyone else. Of course you rarely hear anyone blame Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy mentioned either, but at least Obama has the good sense to let them expire (I think he has little choice now that our debt is so great).
I think a good example of this apparent lack of sense might be seen at the moment in what is apparently a rather massive buildup of our missiles, missile defenses, and military presence in the Persian Gulf. This is said to be in answer to a potential missile threat from Iran. I am not privy to our intelligence operations or any inside information about national defense, but I believe the threat of an Iranian missile attack is absolute bullshit. If anything our actions are probably designed to provoke Iran into doing something that we can then use as an excuse to start still another “war.” Don’t forget how Bush/Cheney tried to provoke Iraq to do something that would give them an excuse. I hate to sound like a broken record, but, again, let me say Iranians are not stupid, nor have they attacked anyone for two hundred or more years (can the U.S. say that?). For what conceivable reason would Iran (with a military budget around one percent of ours and nowhere near that of Israel) launch a missile attack against such overwhelming odds, and what would be the purpose? If there are any warmongers in the Middle East they are clearly Israel and the U.S., and as long as Israel is allowed to conduct torture and genocide against the Palestinians, as well as continuing to steal Palestinian land and water, there will never be peace in that part of the world. U.S. Foreign policy under the Obama administration seems to be virtually unchanged from that of Bush/Cheney, and as long as it continues that way we will remain broke and beggarly as well as engaged in permanent “war.”
LKBIQ:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
TILT:
The life span of a Canadian Lynx is 15 to 21 years.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Stump Ranch Pioneer - book
Stump Ranch Pioneer, Nelle Portrey Davis (Dodd, Mead & Co., N.Y., 1942)
Why did I read this book, a book I almost certainly would never have read if left alone to my own tastes? First, I would not have found a book about a stump ranch appealing. Second, I would have assumed it was by a housewife who fancied herself an author or at least aspired to be one. Third, it was published in 1942, not exactly a current title or topic. Fourth, the copy I have was a reprint of the original, published by the Idaho Historical Society and printed by the University of Idaho Press, hardly a source to look for exciting or, generally speaking, even very interesting books. Here again I am forced to admit that my pre-formed opinions and prejudices would have kept me from reading another interesting work, had it not been for my wife and semi-desperation. I found myself with nothing to read. Our local library acquires only a limited number of new books and there was nothing that interested me. I haven’t been to the North Idaho College Library recently. My wife, who has been caught up in an oral history of North Idaho Project through a course she teaches at NIC, suggested this book. Having read it I am both surprised and pleased.
Nelle Portrey Davis was a housewife, it is true, but she was not an aspiring writer, she was an established writer, having published widely in magazines (I, of course, would not have known this). This was her only full-length book, but she obviously used her talent and previous experience to write a compelling and interesting account of her life, and the life and times of many families caught up in the dust bowl years and forced to move elsewhere. In her case, Davis, her husband, and their two children were forced to abandon their home in Colorado and their dreams of a large sheep ranch, when the dust storms and drought became so intense they were unlivable. Through rumors and word-of-mouth they learned that cut-over timberland in North Idaho was cheap and available, and there was no drought. With little real information they migrated 1500 miles to Boundary County, Idaho where, for $100 down they purchased 40 acres of cut-over timberland (the total price was $530). The 40 acres, plus a huge amount of labor, allowed them to establish themselves comfortably, raise their own food, and through an amazing amount of creativity and ingenuity convert the still heavily timbered land into a home and small farm of which they could be proud. With so little money they existed by selling some remaining timber, cutting cordwood, Christmas trees, a bit of outside labor now and then, an occasional short magazine piece, and just “making do.” They slowly and laboriously cleared enough land of stumps and brush to begin a garden and thenceforth raised their own fruit and vegetables, sheep, goats, cows, horses and chickens, supplemented by venison and fish from the lakes and rivers. Although they never gained much materially they flourished and lived a life idyllic when compared to their dust bowl experience.
In addition to her gift for writing prose, Nelle Davis was also a careful and astute observer of the life around her, the weather, the environment, as well as her neighbors and the culture they lived in. She loved the mountains and was conversant with the native trees and plants and writes of this with obvious love and appreciation. Her descriptions of their various activities, lumbering, animal husbandry, gardening, and neighborly affairs are readable, insightful, marvelously descriptive, and informative. She tells us of a time and place and culture that no longer exists except in the memories of a very few elderly survivors, and here in Boundary County at least, a few remnants that show up at auctions and in antique stores. Indeed, the daughter who is featured in the book, still lives, now approaching her eighties, and has lived on and managed, with her husband, a small farm here all her life. They, by dint of daily hard work and dedication, prospered and raised a successful family. Their farm is itself quite a far cry from the one described in the book, what with more modern equipment, more arable land, and the knowledge acquired over the years, has been able to survive and provide their necessities. But it, too, like almost all small farms, will no doubt succumb eventually to the siren song of “progress.” They say people now don’t understand what it’s like to be farmers, to be committed day and night to their crops and animals, to exist at the whims of the weather and the changes of season. They are right.
The culture described by Davis, although it existed fewer than a hundred years ago, when read about now, seems almost as exotic as if from another land entirely. It is completely unknown to most young people, a culture that was but no longer is. Why was a book about a relatively obscure corner of the world, becoming slowly populated by dust bowl survivors and others with limited means, written by a little-known rural housewife, published by a major New York Publishing House? Remember, in 1942 we were beginning a war. Inspirational books were in demand. This is a book about independent minded, resourceful, creative, ambitious, determined, hard-working, enthusiastic, unwilling to give up or fail people, who lived out the courage of their convictions. It was, and is, a book more American even than apple pie (that, by the way is featured prominently).
It is difficult to say anything truly critical about this book. But, playing Devil’s Advocate, one might say Davis took too literally the fact that she was living in “Paradise Valley.” Similarly, because of the overwhelmingly positive tone of the work, you might say it should have been titled “The Joys of Stump Ranching,” as there is virtually no mention of any unpleasantness or potentially negative aspects of life as she describes it. In any case, if you want a sort of mini-ethnography of American life in the west during the 1930’s and 40’s, you should enjoy this interesting book (if, that is, you are fortunate enough to find a copy).
Why did I read this book, a book I almost certainly would never have read if left alone to my own tastes? First, I would not have found a book about a stump ranch appealing. Second, I would have assumed it was by a housewife who fancied herself an author or at least aspired to be one. Third, it was published in 1942, not exactly a current title or topic. Fourth, the copy I have was a reprint of the original, published by the Idaho Historical Society and printed by the University of Idaho Press, hardly a source to look for exciting or, generally speaking, even very interesting books. Here again I am forced to admit that my pre-formed opinions and prejudices would have kept me from reading another interesting work, had it not been for my wife and semi-desperation. I found myself with nothing to read. Our local library acquires only a limited number of new books and there was nothing that interested me. I haven’t been to the North Idaho College Library recently. My wife, who has been caught up in an oral history of North Idaho Project through a course she teaches at NIC, suggested this book. Having read it I am both surprised and pleased.
Nelle Portrey Davis was a housewife, it is true, but she was not an aspiring writer, she was an established writer, having published widely in magazines (I, of course, would not have known this). This was her only full-length book, but she obviously used her talent and previous experience to write a compelling and interesting account of her life, and the life and times of many families caught up in the dust bowl years and forced to move elsewhere. In her case, Davis, her husband, and their two children were forced to abandon their home in Colorado and their dreams of a large sheep ranch, when the dust storms and drought became so intense they were unlivable. Through rumors and word-of-mouth they learned that cut-over timberland in North Idaho was cheap and available, and there was no drought. With little real information they migrated 1500 miles to Boundary County, Idaho where, for $100 down they purchased 40 acres of cut-over timberland (the total price was $530). The 40 acres, plus a huge amount of labor, allowed them to establish themselves comfortably, raise their own food, and through an amazing amount of creativity and ingenuity convert the still heavily timbered land into a home and small farm of which they could be proud. With so little money they existed by selling some remaining timber, cutting cordwood, Christmas trees, a bit of outside labor now and then, an occasional short magazine piece, and just “making do.” They slowly and laboriously cleared enough land of stumps and brush to begin a garden and thenceforth raised their own fruit and vegetables, sheep, goats, cows, horses and chickens, supplemented by venison and fish from the lakes and rivers. Although they never gained much materially they flourished and lived a life idyllic when compared to their dust bowl experience.
In addition to her gift for writing prose, Nelle Davis was also a careful and astute observer of the life around her, the weather, the environment, as well as her neighbors and the culture they lived in. She loved the mountains and was conversant with the native trees and plants and writes of this with obvious love and appreciation. Her descriptions of their various activities, lumbering, animal husbandry, gardening, and neighborly affairs are readable, insightful, marvelously descriptive, and informative. She tells us of a time and place and culture that no longer exists except in the memories of a very few elderly survivors, and here in Boundary County at least, a few remnants that show up at auctions and in antique stores. Indeed, the daughter who is featured in the book, still lives, now approaching her eighties, and has lived on and managed, with her husband, a small farm here all her life. They, by dint of daily hard work and dedication, prospered and raised a successful family. Their farm is itself quite a far cry from the one described in the book, what with more modern equipment, more arable land, and the knowledge acquired over the years, has been able to survive and provide their necessities. But it, too, like almost all small farms, will no doubt succumb eventually to the siren song of “progress.” They say people now don’t understand what it’s like to be farmers, to be committed day and night to their crops and animals, to exist at the whims of the weather and the changes of season. They are right.
The culture described by Davis, although it existed fewer than a hundred years ago, when read about now, seems almost as exotic as if from another land entirely. It is completely unknown to most young people, a culture that was but no longer is. Why was a book about a relatively obscure corner of the world, becoming slowly populated by dust bowl survivors and others with limited means, written by a little-known rural housewife, published by a major New York Publishing House? Remember, in 1942 we were beginning a war. Inspirational books were in demand. This is a book about independent minded, resourceful, creative, ambitious, determined, hard-working, enthusiastic, unwilling to give up or fail people, who lived out the courage of their convictions. It was, and is, a book more American even than apple pie (that, by the way is featured prominently).
It is difficult to say anything truly critical about this book. But, playing Devil’s Advocate, one might say Davis took too literally the fact that she was living in “Paradise Valley.” Similarly, because of the overwhelmingly positive tone of the work, you might say it should have been titled “The Joys of Stump Ranching,” as there is virtually no mention of any unpleasantness or potentially negative aspects of life as she describes it. In any case, if you want a sort of mini-ethnography of American life in the west during the 1930’s and 40’s, you should enjoy this interesting book (if, that is, you are fortunate enough to find a copy).
Friday, January 29, 2010
Good ol' California
Pastor threatens his son
and family with handgun
over poor church attendance.
Good ol’ California, always on the forefront of intelligent change (but not always immediately successful). The California Senate has passed a single-payer health care bill, absolutely the most intelligent, efficient, sensible, economical, and effective way of providing universal health care. Of course the Gropenfuhrer will veto it, but I would venture to predict that someday, somehow, someway, someone, will see such a system materialize for the entire country (if, that is, the country survives long enough). This single-payer system was not even considered by the Obama administration, apparently on the grounds that it would be impossible to pass. It was to be sort of replaced by a public option plan, but that, too, was regarded as too difficult to pass. What finally emerged was an enormous gift to the Insurance giants that are the heart of our totally dysfunctional system to begin with. Now, of course, there is considerable doubt that anything will pass, thus giving the Insurance companies their fervent wish for nothing to upset the status quo. The billions they have invested in acquiring 40 million more citizens who must now be forced to purchase their flawed health care, and enable them to continue deciding those who need health care the most shouldn’t have it, while those who need it least will have it, is about to pay off big time. In any other business this would no doubt be labeled fraud, but the health care rackets in the U.S. are apparently sacrosanct.
Another attempt on the cutting edge of sanity in California is a rather massive attempt on the part of some to legalize and tax marihuana. This is something that should have been done years ago as it has been known for a long time that marihuana is much less of a threat than alcohol, doesn’t kill anyone, does not automatically lead one on to other drugs, and in general is much more benign that it has been described by those responsible for that famous propaganda piece, “Reefer Madness.” Legalizing pot would raise a good deal of money for a state that desperately needs it, and would doubtless lessen by a huge margin the prison population there. Of course this attempt will be opposed by those who either know nothing about marihuana or wish to ignore what they do know in order to keep it illegal. Who wants to keep it illegal? Churches, of course (they are opposed to most anything that gives pleasure), but also the police (who depend on it for jobs), the pharmaceuticals (who would lose money if it were legal), and no doubt others who benefit materially in one way or another (prisons, schools for troubled teens, etc.). Here again, I have no doubt this attempt at common sense and reason will fail, but it, too, will inevitably come about, just as gay marriage will, and probably even the legalization of all drugs (when it finally can no longer be denied that the famous “war on drugs” has been the most dismal failure imaginable). Drugs are a medical problem, not a political problem, but this idea is resisted by those who wish to pretend otherwise to continue the scam.
After listening to President Obama’s speech last evening, and some of the responses to it, and having watched most of his meeting with the Republican caucus today (rather like watching an adult speaking to children), I am led to ask the question: Are stupid and ignorant people somehow led to become Republicans (is there something intrinsic to Republicanism that attracts them), or do otherwise normal individuals become stupid and ignorant only after becoming Republicans? I have no other way of attempting to explain Republican behavior other than perhaps because of some mental aberration. That is, what is one to make of a political party that announces immediately after the election of an opponent, they wish him (and by implication the country) to fail, and they are going to say “no” to everything, and then turn around and whine incessantly they were not listened to and had no input into the political process? I guess you can call this what you wish, to me it is just plain stupid. Of course I believe most Republican ideas are stupid anyway, and they only seem to have a few they employ constantly in a kind of formulaic manner: tax breaks, tax breaks, tax breaks, drill baby drill, kill all entitlements, save the Israelis, bloat the pentagon, government is bad, socialism in any form is an absolutely mortal threat to humanity, except when it comes to their own health care and benefits, a weird bunch, these Republicans. Listening to most of their stalwarts like Her Silliness, Palin, Her Ignorance, Bachman, Fat Rush, the druggy, the Glenn (the Demented) Beck, and others, does nothing to make me think more positively about them. Today I heard one of them say proudly, they do share something with Obama, more offshore drilling and nuclear power plants, two of the most stupid ideas one might imagine. Perhaps this does make sense, after all we’re only going to be here for a short time, might as well use up all the resources and pose a real challenge for coming generations. To quote a famous old Idaho Senator, “Let coming generations look out for themselves.”
LKBIQ:
Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.
Frank Dane
TILT:
President Obama apparently knows more about everything than the entire Republican caucus combined.
and family with handgun
over poor church attendance.
Good ol’ California, always on the forefront of intelligent change (but not always immediately successful). The California Senate has passed a single-payer health care bill, absolutely the most intelligent, efficient, sensible, economical, and effective way of providing universal health care. Of course the Gropenfuhrer will veto it, but I would venture to predict that someday, somehow, someway, someone, will see such a system materialize for the entire country (if, that is, the country survives long enough). This single-payer system was not even considered by the Obama administration, apparently on the grounds that it would be impossible to pass. It was to be sort of replaced by a public option plan, but that, too, was regarded as too difficult to pass. What finally emerged was an enormous gift to the Insurance giants that are the heart of our totally dysfunctional system to begin with. Now, of course, there is considerable doubt that anything will pass, thus giving the Insurance companies their fervent wish for nothing to upset the status quo. The billions they have invested in acquiring 40 million more citizens who must now be forced to purchase their flawed health care, and enable them to continue deciding those who need health care the most shouldn’t have it, while those who need it least will have it, is about to pay off big time. In any other business this would no doubt be labeled fraud, but the health care rackets in the U.S. are apparently sacrosanct.
Another attempt on the cutting edge of sanity in California is a rather massive attempt on the part of some to legalize and tax marihuana. This is something that should have been done years ago as it has been known for a long time that marihuana is much less of a threat than alcohol, doesn’t kill anyone, does not automatically lead one on to other drugs, and in general is much more benign that it has been described by those responsible for that famous propaganda piece, “Reefer Madness.” Legalizing pot would raise a good deal of money for a state that desperately needs it, and would doubtless lessen by a huge margin the prison population there. Of course this attempt will be opposed by those who either know nothing about marihuana or wish to ignore what they do know in order to keep it illegal. Who wants to keep it illegal? Churches, of course (they are opposed to most anything that gives pleasure), but also the police (who depend on it for jobs), the pharmaceuticals (who would lose money if it were legal), and no doubt others who benefit materially in one way or another (prisons, schools for troubled teens, etc.). Here again, I have no doubt this attempt at common sense and reason will fail, but it, too, will inevitably come about, just as gay marriage will, and probably even the legalization of all drugs (when it finally can no longer be denied that the famous “war on drugs” has been the most dismal failure imaginable). Drugs are a medical problem, not a political problem, but this idea is resisted by those who wish to pretend otherwise to continue the scam.
After listening to President Obama’s speech last evening, and some of the responses to it, and having watched most of his meeting with the Republican caucus today (rather like watching an adult speaking to children), I am led to ask the question: Are stupid and ignorant people somehow led to become Republicans (is there something intrinsic to Republicanism that attracts them), or do otherwise normal individuals become stupid and ignorant only after becoming Republicans? I have no other way of attempting to explain Republican behavior other than perhaps because of some mental aberration. That is, what is one to make of a political party that announces immediately after the election of an opponent, they wish him (and by implication the country) to fail, and they are going to say “no” to everything, and then turn around and whine incessantly they were not listened to and had no input into the political process? I guess you can call this what you wish, to me it is just plain stupid. Of course I believe most Republican ideas are stupid anyway, and they only seem to have a few they employ constantly in a kind of formulaic manner: tax breaks, tax breaks, tax breaks, drill baby drill, kill all entitlements, save the Israelis, bloat the pentagon, government is bad, socialism in any form is an absolutely mortal threat to humanity, except when it comes to their own health care and benefits, a weird bunch, these Republicans. Listening to most of their stalwarts like Her Silliness, Palin, Her Ignorance, Bachman, Fat Rush, the druggy, the Glenn (the Demented) Beck, and others, does nothing to make me think more positively about them. Today I heard one of them say proudly, they do share something with Obama, more offshore drilling and nuclear power plants, two of the most stupid ideas one might imagine. Perhaps this does make sense, after all we’re only going to be here for a short time, might as well use up all the resources and pose a real challenge for coming generations. To quote a famous old Idaho Senator, “Let coming generations look out for themselves.”
LKBIQ:
Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.
Frank Dane
TILT:
President Obama apparently knows more about everything than the entire Republican caucus combined.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Is Obama Insane?
Is President Obama insane? I’m serious. You remember Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Well, Obama has reached out to Republicans over and over again, trying for bipartisanship, and the more he attempts it, the more he is scorned. So, by Einstein’s definition we have no choice but to believe he is insane. Even tonight, in his State of the Union address, he was still trying to raise even a glimmer of hope for bipartisanship, and Republicans, as usual sat on their hands and did not respond (with all due respect to Rachel Maddow’s feeble attempt to read their body language that, to her, seemed to indicate a tiny bit of positive response).
But it was a fine speech, every bit as good as his usual performance. And as you might expect he said all the right things, tried to inspire bipartisanship, told us all not to lose hope, he would never give up, and so on. The Democrats loved it, the Republicans hated it, but, then, what else would you have expected? It’s hard to argue against creating jobs, passing health care reform, defending us from terrorists, helping small businesses, reducing taxes on the middle class, doing away with don’t ask, don’t tell, and equal wages for equal work, and etc., etc. As it was a speech primarily about jobs and unemployment, he did not even mention health care until later in the speech. And of course he said nothing about the inadequacies of the current health care bill he is urging Congress to pass, he obviously wants anything about health care to pass no matter how inadequate it may be. He was also remarkably silent on the question of our current “wars,” although he did mention them more or less in passing. He said our troops would soon be home from Iraq, said virtually nothing about Afghanistan, did not remark at all about the obscene costs of these misadventures, and announced that his proposed freeze on spending would not apply to the military (where, of course, he could easily find plenty of billions to help us out of the mess we are in – military and the pentagon are somehow sacred institutions that are entitled to endless funds no matter how useless they may actually be). More importantly, to me at least, he said nothing at all about Israel, the single most important barrier to peace in the Middle East and an international criminal enterprise (I think he was afraid the Israel lobby might actually materialize right there and bite him).
He resisted the temptation (if he even felt one) to bash the Bush/Cheney administration, although he did point out that he had inherited from them an extremely bad, if not impossible, situation. He obviously has no intention whatsoever of trying to hold them accountable for their war crimes. And he recited the usual accusation about Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear bomb (for which there is absolutely no evidence). There were many positive things mentioned, not the least of which was substantial increases in educational funds, long overdue, more money for scientific research, more money to help small businesses hire more people, tax breaks for the middle class, and so on. But there were some red flags for me: his apparent support for nuclear energy (an absolute abomination), his continued support for the military budget (bloated beyond any conceivable reality), his support for clean coal (which does not exist) and biofuels (fraught with many serious problems), and his assumption that by 2011 we would be in better fiscal shape (which I seriously doubt).
It was a fine and stirring effort, full of many of the usual clichés about what a marvelous country we are, how generous, how creative and innovative, how we only want to help people around the world, how Iraq has been freed to now manage itself, how noble, in general, we are, and how we only seek peace (all the usual falsehoods that a President has to say, thus invariably not facing reality as it truly is). I doubt he could have done a better job, but I’d bet a lot he will not get any help from our treasonous Republicans who have vowed to make him (and the country) fail. He said that now that Republicans have 41 votes in the Senate they should be obliged to participate and stop blocking everything. Republicans spit on participation and have vowed repeatedly to be the party of no. Forty one votes instead of 40 are not going to change them. Democrats should go to reconciliation, pass the best parts of the current bill, continue to promote better health care, and expose Republican sabotage at every opportunity, dwell on it, repeat it constantly, and follow my advice, roviate Republicans as they have roviated you. No more coddling, pleading, compromising, bribing, cajoling, or trying to please these unpatriotic slimebags whose only interests are greed and their lust for power, and who are willing to sacrifice their country to achieve them.
Obama barely got off the stage before McCain announced he was opposed to trying to do away with don’t ask, don’t tell. Sigh.
But it was a fine speech, every bit as good as his usual performance. And as you might expect he said all the right things, tried to inspire bipartisanship, told us all not to lose hope, he would never give up, and so on. The Democrats loved it, the Republicans hated it, but, then, what else would you have expected? It’s hard to argue against creating jobs, passing health care reform, defending us from terrorists, helping small businesses, reducing taxes on the middle class, doing away with don’t ask, don’t tell, and equal wages for equal work, and etc., etc. As it was a speech primarily about jobs and unemployment, he did not even mention health care until later in the speech. And of course he said nothing about the inadequacies of the current health care bill he is urging Congress to pass, he obviously wants anything about health care to pass no matter how inadequate it may be. He was also remarkably silent on the question of our current “wars,” although he did mention them more or less in passing. He said our troops would soon be home from Iraq, said virtually nothing about Afghanistan, did not remark at all about the obscene costs of these misadventures, and announced that his proposed freeze on spending would not apply to the military (where, of course, he could easily find plenty of billions to help us out of the mess we are in – military and the pentagon are somehow sacred institutions that are entitled to endless funds no matter how useless they may actually be). More importantly, to me at least, he said nothing at all about Israel, the single most important barrier to peace in the Middle East and an international criminal enterprise (I think he was afraid the Israel lobby might actually materialize right there and bite him).
He resisted the temptation (if he even felt one) to bash the Bush/Cheney administration, although he did point out that he had inherited from them an extremely bad, if not impossible, situation. He obviously has no intention whatsoever of trying to hold them accountable for their war crimes. And he recited the usual accusation about Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear bomb (for which there is absolutely no evidence). There were many positive things mentioned, not the least of which was substantial increases in educational funds, long overdue, more money for scientific research, more money to help small businesses hire more people, tax breaks for the middle class, and so on. But there were some red flags for me: his apparent support for nuclear energy (an absolute abomination), his continued support for the military budget (bloated beyond any conceivable reality), his support for clean coal (which does not exist) and biofuels (fraught with many serious problems), and his assumption that by 2011 we would be in better fiscal shape (which I seriously doubt).
It was a fine and stirring effort, full of many of the usual clichés about what a marvelous country we are, how generous, how creative and innovative, how we only want to help people around the world, how Iraq has been freed to now manage itself, how noble, in general, we are, and how we only seek peace (all the usual falsehoods that a President has to say, thus invariably not facing reality as it truly is). I doubt he could have done a better job, but I’d bet a lot he will not get any help from our treasonous Republicans who have vowed to make him (and the country) fail. He said that now that Republicans have 41 votes in the Senate they should be obliged to participate and stop blocking everything. Republicans spit on participation and have vowed repeatedly to be the party of no. Forty one votes instead of 40 are not going to change them. Democrats should go to reconciliation, pass the best parts of the current bill, continue to promote better health care, and expose Republican sabotage at every opportunity, dwell on it, repeat it constantly, and follow my advice, roviate Republicans as they have roviated you. No more coddling, pleading, compromising, bribing, cajoling, or trying to please these unpatriotic slimebags whose only interests are greed and their lust for power, and who are willing to sacrifice their country to achieve them.
Obama barely got off the stage before McCain announced he was opposed to trying to do away with don’t ask, don’t tell. Sigh.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Stupid Ideas
Customer complains he was
served beef instead of chicken,
gets hit on the head with a plate.
I’m sorry to have to say it, but there really are some stupid ideas floating around out there. This talk of exhuming Leonardo da Vinci’s body should probably lead the list. I think some Italian art historians and scientists may have been drinking some bad Chianti. Whoever first came up with the idea that the Mona Lisa is really a portrait of da Vinci himself should certainly be tested for potential misuse of something or other. Strangely enough this particular issue has nothing to do with her smile (for a change). Anyway, there are clearly a lot of questions about this, certainly enough to render the whole enterprise not worth doing. First, they don’t know what they will find in the grave. The remains may be too far gone to be of much use. Second, whatever remains there are may not even be da Vinci, as he has reportedly already been exhumed at least once and reburied. Third, even if there are adequate remains, and even if they show some similarities to the facial features of the Mona Lisa, it would still not prove their thesis. I guess part of the idea has to do with Leonardo’s homosexuality and, therefore, his presumed desire to portray himself as a young woman, something that could never be proved by exhuming his skull. This whole idea in my opinion is truly far-fetched. If one of the ideas is that the smile is Leonardo’s smile because he is fooling his audience, I think that is nonsense. I have long wondered about all the controversy over her smile, it has always seemed to me to be the same smile all beautiful women have, knowing the secret of their power.
Another really stupid idea is a freeze on spending for three years, the freeze Obama is reportedly going to announce tomorrow in his state of the union address. This freeze is not going to substantially impact the deficit, will slow down things right now when they need to be accelerated, and is nothing more than a political sop to conservative Democrats and Republicans. When is Obama going to give up trying to appease these people, they are not going to vote on anything to help him no matter what he does. Indeed, they are already bitching that this freeze is not going far enough. There is just no satiating the insatiable, and these conservatives are absolutely insatiable when it comes to pleasing them about anything Obama. If Obama hadn’t wasted so much time and effort trying to achieve bipartisanship with those who had already declared they were the party of no, perhaps we would have achieved much more by now.
Of course you’d have to look a long way to find any idea more stupid than the recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are people and should have the same rights as people. I wonder that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, trying to get up to toss the bums out. Indeed, this is an idea so stupid that it could only have been a deliberate political decision by the conservative members of the court. Either that or those members have no business being on the court in the first place. The court is not supposed to be political, but this court has made a mockery of that idea. Some of them should be impeached.
Unfortunately, there are lots of ideas even more stupid than the above. The idea, for example, that you could ever have a decent, efficient, effective, and desirable health care system based upon an insurance for-profit system is surely one of them. For-profit prisons are another entirely stupid idea, as is the idea of a for-profit military or a for-profit water supply, or even, as we seem to have now, a for-profit political system. As I have said so often, some things cannot be left to the private sector. I suppose it wouldn’t matter much if there was a for-profit cosmetic industry, or a for-profit toy industry, or a for-profit fashion industry, or other things like that, but I’m not even so sure about a for-profit entertainment industry (but these are questions better left for another time). I’m beginning to think like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, I’ve thought of more than six impossibly stupid ideas before breakfast. I guess it’s just part of the human condition, where seemingly good ideas often turn out to be truly stupid, and seemingly stupid ideas sometimes turn out to be really clever. “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris ... [because] no known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping.” Orville Wright. I don’t know how one would prove it, but it seems to me that seemingly good ideas turn out to be bad more often than seemingly bad ideas turn out to be good. I think I may be “losing it,” Donald Rumsfeld is starting to make sense:”Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.” Good ideas gone bad would seem to be a case in point?
LKBIQ:
As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
Henry David Thoreau
TILT:
All cats seem to have occasional bouts of mania.
served beef instead of chicken,
gets hit on the head with a plate.
I’m sorry to have to say it, but there really are some stupid ideas floating around out there. This talk of exhuming Leonardo da Vinci’s body should probably lead the list. I think some Italian art historians and scientists may have been drinking some bad Chianti. Whoever first came up with the idea that the Mona Lisa is really a portrait of da Vinci himself should certainly be tested for potential misuse of something or other. Strangely enough this particular issue has nothing to do with her smile (for a change). Anyway, there are clearly a lot of questions about this, certainly enough to render the whole enterprise not worth doing. First, they don’t know what they will find in the grave. The remains may be too far gone to be of much use. Second, whatever remains there are may not even be da Vinci, as he has reportedly already been exhumed at least once and reburied. Third, even if there are adequate remains, and even if they show some similarities to the facial features of the Mona Lisa, it would still not prove their thesis. I guess part of the idea has to do with Leonardo’s homosexuality and, therefore, his presumed desire to portray himself as a young woman, something that could never be proved by exhuming his skull. This whole idea in my opinion is truly far-fetched. If one of the ideas is that the smile is Leonardo’s smile because he is fooling his audience, I think that is nonsense. I have long wondered about all the controversy over her smile, it has always seemed to me to be the same smile all beautiful women have, knowing the secret of their power.
Another really stupid idea is a freeze on spending for three years, the freeze Obama is reportedly going to announce tomorrow in his state of the union address. This freeze is not going to substantially impact the deficit, will slow down things right now when they need to be accelerated, and is nothing more than a political sop to conservative Democrats and Republicans. When is Obama going to give up trying to appease these people, they are not going to vote on anything to help him no matter what he does. Indeed, they are already bitching that this freeze is not going far enough. There is just no satiating the insatiable, and these conservatives are absolutely insatiable when it comes to pleasing them about anything Obama. If Obama hadn’t wasted so much time and effort trying to achieve bipartisanship with those who had already declared they were the party of no, perhaps we would have achieved much more by now.
Of course you’d have to look a long way to find any idea more stupid than the recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are people and should have the same rights as people. I wonder that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, trying to get up to toss the bums out. Indeed, this is an idea so stupid that it could only have been a deliberate political decision by the conservative members of the court. Either that or those members have no business being on the court in the first place. The court is not supposed to be political, but this court has made a mockery of that idea. Some of them should be impeached.
Unfortunately, there are lots of ideas even more stupid than the above. The idea, for example, that you could ever have a decent, efficient, effective, and desirable health care system based upon an insurance for-profit system is surely one of them. For-profit prisons are another entirely stupid idea, as is the idea of a for-profit military or a for-profit water supply, or even, as we seem to have now, a for-profit political system. As I have said so often, some things cannot be left to the private sector. I suppose it wouldn’t matter much if there was a for-profit cosmetic industry, or a for-profit toy industry, or a for-profit fashion industry, or other things like that, but I’m not even so sure about a for-profit entertainment industry (but these are questions better left for another time). I’m beginning to think like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, I’ve thought of more than six impossibly stupid ideas before breakfast. I guess it’s just part of the human condition, where seemingly good ideas often turn out to be truly stupid, and seemingly stupid ideas sometimes turn out to be really clever. “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris ... [because] no known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping.” Orville Wright. I don’t know how one would prove it, but it seems to me that seemingly good ideas turn out to be bad more often than seemingly bad ideas turn out to be good. I think I may be “losing it,” Donald Rumsfeld is starting to make sense:”Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.” Good ideas gone bad would seem to be a case in point?
LKBIQ:
As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
Henry David Thoreau
TILT:
All cats seem to have occasional bouts of mania.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Epitaph
Stalking ex-girlfriend
Idaho man tosses used
condoms on her lawn.
The other day when my mind was idling along as it is wont to do I suddenly came up with what I thought would be a suitable epitaph: Boy, Was I Stupid! No I don’t mean I was stupid to come up with an epitaph, I mean that’s it, my epitaph. Of course I then realized that as I wish to be cremated in the least expensive manner I wouldn’t have a tombstone to put it on. Perhaps I’ll have a skywriter hired to spell it out in the heavens. Anyway, in the meanwhile I keep having some really stupid ideas. I guess they are stupid because I don’t believe anyone would take them seriously.
For example, it occurs to me that if we really wished to make prescription drugs more affordable it would be relatively easy to do. If we simply made it illegal for them to advertise drugs on TV, something that is totally unnecessary, but that they spend billions on every year, no doubt drugs would become much less expensive. Whatever happened to the simple idea that doctors prescribe the drugs you need without having to have you ask them about them all the time? I’m sure you have all seen the virtually unlimited ads asking you to “Ask your doctor if you need x, or y, or a,b,c, or whatever.” You know, if you have something bothering you health-wise you should see your doctor and he tells you what you should try, just like the good old days before all this nonsensical advertising for drugs people don’t need for ailments that are sometimes invented as an excuse to manufacture another drug. Similarly, we got along fine for years without liquor advertisements on TV, so why did they begin again? Why should there be anything like tobacco or liquor ads on TV in the first place?
Similarly, it occurs to me that vast amounts of energy could be saved by the simple step of making it illegal for buildings, especially skyscrapers, to leave their lights on all night long. I’m sure you’ve seen cities at night with every huge building lit up for no apparent reason. Could it be the case that 24 floors of a building could all be burglarized at once? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and probably more efficient to have a night watchman? Probably many building both leave all their lights on and have a night watchman. What do I know?
Then there is the constant Israeli/Palestinian problem. This is pretty widely regarded as the source of most of the conflict in the Middle East and it has been dragging on for years. I see today that Netanyahu has announced that parts of the West Bank will be “Israel’s forever.” Given the fact that the West Bank is acknowledged to belong to the Palestinians this does not seem entirely reasonable and is in violation of all past agreements and etc. The Israelis are also demanding a permanent military presence in any Palestinian state, a sure killer of any potential negotiations for such a state. It would seem to my simple mind that Obama could simply say to the Israelis, shape up and cooperate or you will no longer receive any aid, military, financial, political, or otherwise from the U.S. It is surely clear by now that Israel has no intention of ever seriously negotiating with the Palestinians, does not want a Palestinian state, and continues to steal more and more Palestinian land and water. The entire world knows this, but no one, least of all the U.S., which could solve the problem, does so. I realize this is not a simple as it sounds, but nothing worth doing is ever entirely simple and sometimes everyone has to bite the bullet and make the best of things. Not so, the Israelis, who have been allowed to ride roughshod over International Law since the beginning.
The Supreme Court (if it can even be considered a court any longer) has come up with the most god-awful decision ever, or certainly since Dred Scott. As it was the same court that illegally gave the Presidency to George W. Bush, it is now completely obvious that the court has become political and is doing things it should not be able to do. As the only way to get rid of a Supreme Court Justice, as far as I know, is impeachment, that is what should be done. I don’t see anyone promoting impeachment, instead suggesting ways to change the laws to reverse the decision or get around it in some way. This, I believe, is not going to change the present composition of the court, which is the basic problem. I don’t know what will eventually happen, but you can be pretty sure it won’t solve the problem. Simple solutions do not seem to make sense to anyone but me (I guess that’s why I’m so stupid).
Surely the “war” in Afghanistan could be solved easily. The President could simply announce it was a terrible mistake by the previous administration, withdraw our troops, and offer whatever other assistance the Afghans might desire (that we clearly owe them). Or, conversely, the Congress could simply cut off any further funds for that ridiculous enterprise, but of course neither of these things will ever happen, they are apparently solutions far too difficult for our leaders to comprehend (and they might upset all the war profiteers).
As near as I can tell, there are no problems facing the U.S. that could not be solved if someone had the will to solve them. But as no one seems to have the will they will not be solved. I guess simple things are just too complex, even though complex things can often be simple. I confess I wonder now if anyone has any idea just what the hell it is they are doing (and I fear they do not).
LKBIQ:
Manifest plainness,
Embrace simplicity,
Reduce selfishness,
Have few desires.
Lao-tzu
TILT:
There are about 4000 species of cockroaches.
Idaho man tosses used
condoms on her lawn.
The other day when my mind was idling along as it is wont to do I suddenly came up with what I thought would be a suitable epitaph: Boy, Was I Stupid! No I don’t mean I was stupid to come up with an epitaph, I mean that’s it, my epitaph. Of course I then realized that as I wish to be cremated in the least expensive manner I wouldn’t have a tombstone to put it on. Perhaps I’ll have a skywriter hired to spell it out in the heavens. Anyway, in the meanwhile I keep having some really stupid ideas. I guess they are stupid because I don’t believe anyone would take them seriously.
For example, it occurs to me that if we really wished to make prescription drugs more affordable it would be relatively easy to do. If we simply made it illegal for them to advertise drugs on TV, something that is totally unnecessary, but that they spend billions on every year, no doubt drugs would become much less expensive. Whatever happened to the simple idea that doctors prescribe the drugs you need without having to have you ask them about them all the time? I’m sure you have all seen the virtually unlimited ads asking you to “Ask your doctor if you need x, or y, or a,b,c, or whatever.” You know, if you have something bothering you health-wise you should see your doctor and he tells you what you should try, just like the good old days before all this nonsensical advertising for drugs people don’t need for ailments that are sometimes invented as an excuse to manufacture another drug. Similarly, we got along fine for years without liquor advertisements on TV, so why did they begin again? Why should there be anything like tobacco or liquor ads on TV in the first place?
Similarly, it occurs to me that vast amounts of energy could be saved by the simple step of making it illegal for buildings, especially skyscrapers, to leave their lights on all night long. I’m sure you’ve seen cities at night with every huge building lit up for no apparent reason. Could it be the case that 24 floors of a building could all be burglarized at once? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and probably more efficient to have a night watchman? Probably many building both leave all their lights on and have a night watchman. What do I know?
Then there is the constant Israeli/Palestinian problem. This is pretty widely regarded as the source of most of the conflict in the Middle East and it has been dragging on for years. I see today that Netanyahu has announced that parts of the West Bank will be “Israel’s forever.” Given the fact that the West Bank is acknowledged to belong to the Palestinians this does not seem entirely reasonable and is in violation of all past agreements and etc. The Israelis are also demanding a permanent military presence in any Palestinian state, a sure killer of any potential negotiations for such a state. It would seem to my simple mind that Obama could simply say to the Israelis, shape up and cooperate or you will no longer receive any aid, military, financial, political, or otherwise from the U.S. It is surely clear by now that Israel has no intention of ever seriously negotiating with the Palestinians, does not want a Palestinian state, and continues to steal more and more Palestinian land and water. The entire world knows this, but no one, least of all the U.S., which could solve the problem, does so. I realize this is not a simple as it sounds, but nothing worth doing is ever entirely simple and sometimes everyone has to bite the bullet and make the best of things. Not so, the Israelis, who have been allowed to ride roughshod over International Law since the beginning.
The Supreme Court (if it can even be considered a court any longer) has come up with the most god-awful decision ever, or certainly since Dred Scott. As it was the same court that illegally gave the Presidency to George W. Bush, it is now completely obvious that the court has become political and is doing things it should not be able to do. As the only way to get rid of a Supreme Court Justice, as far as I know, is impeachment, that is what should be done. I don’t see anyone promoting impeachment, instead suggesting ways to change the laws to reverse the decision or get around it in some way. This, I believe, is not going to change the present composition of the court, which is the basic problem. I don’t know what will eventually happen, but you can be pretty sure it won’t solve the problem. Simple solutions do not seem to make sense to anyone but me (I guess that’s why I’m so stupid).
Surely the “war” in Afghanistan could be solved easily. The President could simply announce it was a terrible mistake by the previous administration, withdraw our troops, and offer whatever other assistance the Afghans might desire (that we clearly owe them). Or, conversely, the Congress could simply cut off any further funds for that ridiculous enterprise, but of course neither of these things will ever happen, they are apparently solutions far too difficult for our leaders to comprehend (and they might upset all the war profiteers).
As near as I can tell, there are no problems facing the U.S. that could not be solved if someone had the will to solve them. But as no one seems to have the will they will not be solved. I guess simple things are just too complex, even though complex things can often be simple. I confess I wonder now if anyone has any idea just what the hell it is they are doing (and I fear they do not).
LKBIQ:
Manifest plainness,
Embrace simplicity,
Reduce selfishness,
Have few desires.
Lao-tzu
TILT:
There are about 4000 species of cockroaches.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Resistance - book
RÉSISTANCE, by AGNÈS HUMBERT (Bloomsbury, NY, 2004)
This book first appeared in France in 1946. The subtitle describes it very well, A Woman’s Journal of Struggle and Defiance in Occupied France. It is an extremely interesting book for a variety of reasons.
When the Nazis marched into Paris in 1940, Humbert was a respected art historian with a good job in a museum, a divorced mother of two sons, a left-wing intellectual and 43 years of age. She was comfortable and not what one would consider a likely candidate for the French resistance movement. But almost instantaneously she helped found one of the first resistance movements in the country, rounding up nine others of similar persuasions. This group began meeting in secret and published leaflets and a small newspaper to counter the Nazi propaganda that was rampant. She helped compose and typed these illegal documents and delivered them around Paris, sometimes keeping them rolled up in her stockings. Her group soon learned of other similar groups and a large resistance movement was formed. Unfortunately, after only 10 months she and the other members of her group were discovered by the Nazis, arrested, and sentenced, some to death, and Humbert to five years in prison. This book is her account of these years, written as a journal or diary it recounts her experiences founding the resistance group and her four years in various Nazi prison camps.
During the early phases of the occupation, women like Humbert were not sent to concentration camps but, rather, to work camps where they were forced to perform labor of various kinds. While there were no gas chambers, life in these camps was not much better than life in the concentration camps when it came to food and treatment in general. The women were always hungry, dressed in rags, forced to perform hard labor ten or more hours a day, under extremely adverse circumstances, and lived in dormitories with little in the way of sanitation or other comforts. There is no doubt they suffered terribly. Humbert herself was eventually nicknamed “Gandhi” as she had lost so much weight during her awful experiences. She recorded these experiences, not always on a daily basis, but often, and in a prose style that makes you feel at times you were right there with her. She had a fine eye for detail and a remarkable ability to register fairly objectively the horrors of unreasonable brutality as well as occasional acts of unusual kindness. Being moved several times from one camp to another, she was often thrown together with women from several countries, sometimes murderers, prostitutes, petty thieves, the wives of Jews, and, of course, many women of the resistance. At times they were also able to communicate with male prisoners as well, and somehow they managed to get at least some news of how things were going in the war. They also managed to communicate with each other by speaking through the cracks under their cell doors, through the ventilation systems, and whatever means they could invent. By and large the prisoners helped each other and many became fast friends for life. Through it all they waited patiently, knowing that someday the allies would be triumphant and things would return to normal. Humbert never ceased her resistance as even when forced to work in a rayon factory she found a means to sabotage the spools she produced, and later, when forced to make wooden crates, she weakened the nails so her crates would soon fall apart. She absolutely refused to do anything to further the Nazi cause even at great risk to herself.
As you read further and further into this account of human misery, brutality, and inhumanity you begin to wonder how it could have been that Humbert was able to keep such a journal going, as it became obvious that most of the time she had no paper or pens or even time for such an endeavor. As the entire journal is written in the first person and the present tense, and is so realistic as to completely captivate you, it is somewhat of a surprise to learn that much of the book was written after the fact. This of course raises the question of memory and accuracy and makes you wonder if perhaps much of it was simply made up after the fact. Perhaps it glorified her role, or the roles of others, perhaps her anger led her to extremes of subjectivity and mischaracterization. It is my impression that she remained remarkably objective and reported things and events pretty much as they must have occurred. Humbert was obviously a very intelligent woman with a fine memory. She began writing this account almost as soon as she was freed and back in Paris. It must have still been fresh in her mind, and the experiences she recounts are not the kinds of things one would be likely to either forget or make up. The first ten months of the resistance were written at the time, and her experiences at the very end of the war were likewise documented mostly as they occurred. She also somehow had managed to keep a book of Descartes with her during her ordeal and made some occasional notes in it. It is the actual period of her incarceration that she reconstructed. But she did this with considerable precision, with the actual names of the people she encountered, the towns and prisons she passed through, even the occasional glimpses of the outside, the flowers, spring, the fresh air, the joys of survival and friendship, and so on. There is little to indicate any form of fabrication or dishonesty. She is exceptionally modest throughout, especially at the end of the war when she was put in charge of organizing some towns and, more importantly, an anti-Nazi investigation, for which she was later given commendations. If anyone believes the French did not resist the German occupation they should read this account of these remarkably brave and dedicated French women who simply refused to give up.
This book first appeared in France in 1946. The subtitle describes it very well, A Woman’s Journal of Struggle and Defiance in Occupied France. It is an extremely interesting book for a variety of reasons.
When the Nazis marched into Paris in 1940, Humbert was a respected art historian with a good job in a museum, a divorced mother of two sons, a left-wing intellectual and 43 years of age. She was comfortable and not what one would consider a likely candidate for the French resistance movement. But almost instantaneously she helped found one of the first resistance movements in the country, rounding up nine others of similar persuasions. This group began meeting in secret and published leaflets and a small newspaper to counter the Nazi propaganda that was rampant. She helped compose and typed these illegal documents and delivered them around Paris, sometimes keeping them rolled up in her stockings. Her group soon learned of other similar groups and a large resistance movement was formed. Unfortunately, after only 10 months she and the other members of her group were discovered by the Nazis, arrested, and sentenced, some to death, and Humbert to five years in prison. This book is her account of these years, written as a journal or diary it recounts her experiences founding the resistance group and her four years in various Nazi prison camps.
During the early phases of the occupation, women like Humbert were not sent to concentration camps but, rather, to work camps where they were forced to perform labor of various kinds. While there were no gas chambers, life in these camps was not much better than life in the concentration camps when it came to food and treatment in general. The women were always hungry, dressed in rags, forced to perform hard labor ten or more hours a day, under extremely adverse circumstances, and lived in dormitories with little in the way of sanitation or other comforts. There is no doubt they suffered terribly. Humbert herself was eventually nicknamed “Gandhi” as she had lost so much weight during her awful experiences. She recorded these experiences, not always on a daily basis, but often, and in a prose style that makes you feel at times you were right there with her. She had a fine eye for detail and a remarkable ability to register fairly objectively the horrors of unreasonable brutality as well as occasional acts of unusual kindness. Being moved several times from one camp to another, she was often thrown together with women from several countries, sometimes murderers, prostitutes, petty thieves, the wives of Jews, and, of course, many women of the resistance. At times they were also able to communicate with male prisoners as well, and somehow they managed to get at least some news of how things were going in the war. They also managed to communicate with each other by speaking through the cracks under their cell doors, through the ventilation systems, and whatever means they could invent. By and large the prisoners helped each other and many became fast friends for life. Through it all they waited patiently, knowing that someday the allies would be triumphant and things would return to normal. Humbert never ceased her resistance as even when forced to work in a rayon factory she found a means to sabotage the spools she produced, and later, when forced to make wooden crates, she weakened the nails so her crates would soon fall apart. She absolutely refused to do anything to further the Nazi cause even at great risk to herself.
As you read further and further into this account of human misery, brutality, and inhumanity you begin to wonder how it could have been that Humbert was able to keep such a journal going, as it became obvious that most of the time she had no paper or pens or even time for such an endeavor. As the entire journal is written in the first person and the present tense, and is so realistic as to completely captivate you, it is somewhat of a surprise to learn that much of the book was written after the fact. This of course raises the question of memory and accuracy and makes you wonder if perhaps much of it was simply made up after the fact. Perhaps it glorified her role, or the roles of others, perhaps her anger led her to extremes of subjectivity and mischaracterization. It is my impression that she remained remarkably objective and reported things and events pretty much as they must have occurred. Humbert was obviously a very intelligent woman with a fine memory. She began writing this account almost as soon as she was freed and back in Paris. It must have still been fresh in her mind, and the experiences she recounts are not the kinds of things one would be likely to either forget or make up. The first ten months of the resistance were written at the time, and her experiences at the very end of the war were likewise documented mostly as they occurred. She also somehow had managed to keep a book of Descartes with her during her ordeal and made some occasional notes in it. It is the actual period of her incarceration that she reconstructed. But she did this with considerable precision, with the actual names of the people she encountered, the towns and prisons she passed through, even the occasional glimpses of the outside, the flowers, spring, the fresh air, the joys of survival and friendship, and so on. There is little to indicate any form of fabrication or dishonesty. She is exceptionally modest throughout, especially at the end of the war when she was put in charge of organizing some towns and, more importantly, an anti-Nazi investigation, for which she was later given commendations. If anyone believes the French did not resist the German occupation they should read this account of these remarkably brave and dedicated French women who simply refused to give up.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supreme Travesty
Barefoot woman in pajamas
arrested twice in three days
for drunken driving.
Our Supreme Court has outdone itself in promoting our increasing evolution into a full-blown fascist state. Remember Mussolini’s definition of fascism as being a marriage between corporations and government, and that is what has been happening in the U.S. for quite a long time now. It was bad enough when the Supreme Court interfered in the 2000 election and illegally awarded the Presidency to the incompetent George W. Bush, but now they have topped even that. It is widely known that many of the problems the U.S. faces are a direct result of corporate lobbyists and the influence of corporate money in our political system. There were a few minor restrictions on such practices but now even they have been brushed aside as corporate money will flow into the pockets of our Congresspersons at an accelerated rate, the result of this absolutely asinine decision.
The idea that corporations should have the same rights and privileges as individuals, one of the foundations of these recent decisions, seems to me to be highly questionable (at best), and at worst is simply ridiculous. The idea that gifts of money are simply an exercise of free speech is itself somewhat questionable, but when there are no restrictions on the amounts of free speech that can be exercised, and when corporations obviously have so much more money than anyone else it, obviously means that those with the most money have a monumental advantage. The Supremes looked at a system that was terribly dysfunctional as a form of government and decided to make it worse. Why did they do this? Because they recognize they are themselves just little cogs in a system designed to take over the world in the (unstated) name of Fascism, once again the dream of empire, in this case the greatest empire ever to be established.
Undeterred by the election of a Democratic administration they are just basically ignoring it, knowing that basically it, too, will be swallowed up by this massive movement, financed by corporate interests and motivated by the quest for power and profit. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way. The one hope to overcome this fascist movement would be to establish a system of public financing for elections, but this recent ruling will make that impossible, as their money will control what happens in Congress and elsewhere.
As Greg Palast has pointed out, there is another insidious feature of this decision that is of the utmost importance, but seems not to be mentioned. Namely, American elections will now be open to non-American interests. The corporations that control most everything are not necessarily just American, they are international in scope. With this ruling there is nothing to prevent the Russians or the Chinese, or any other country from exercising their “free speech” by donating money to influence political decisions that may affect them, as long as their donations come from corporations in which they have an interest. Some of these corporations already have annual incomes exceeding that of many, if not most countries. This means that a few giant corporations will in fact end up ruling the world, national and individual interests will fall by the wayside as they will be simply brushed aside if they do not coincide with the desires of these corporate giants. This is already happening and will result eventually in a two-class society, a wealthy “Upper” class, and a poor “Lower” class, that will exist only in so far as they do the bidding of the former. Is this not what is already happening in the U.S.? This is a situation far more serious than when Teddy Roosevelt fought the “robber barons” and may already have gone so far as to be impervious to change. Note that Obama didn’t even try to take on the Insurance giants, but instead attempted merely to influence a few of their rules. And if he somehow manages to change the banks you can be sure the changes will be mostly cosmetic. I’m sure he knows that if he rocks the boat too strenuously he will become a one term President. Will he sacrifice himself for the good of the country and truly try to change the system, or will he meekly do the bidding of the powers that be. The former spells greatness, the latter business as usual.
Interestingly, there is a third strategy open to Obama, one that I believe he is more likely to pursue. This is because there are areas in which Obama is probably pretty free to operate because these are areas in which the powers that be don’t really care about (unless at any given moment they want to use one of them to further divide the country). For example, I don’t believe these giant corporations have any particular interest in abortion. They don’t really care if women have abortions or not. Similarly, I doubt they have any major interest in “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Nor do they care whether gays marry or not, whether there is gun control or not, if states offer assisted suicides or not, “death panels,” and so on. That is, there are many issues that do not importantly impinge on profits, but about which many Americans hold strong beliefs, either pro or con. Obama can probably meddle in these areas, perhaps even bringing about some changes that will make him appear to have done something, and for which he could take credit without actually having challenged the more basic infrastructure of the “single party” strategy. Am I crazy? Perhaps.
Bipartisanship,
elusive temptress, evades
Barack Obama
arrested twice in three days
for drunken driving.
Our Supreme Court has outdone itself in promoting our increasing evolution into a full-blown fascist state. Remember Mussolini’s definition of fascism as being a marriage between corporations and government, and that is what has been happening in the U.S. for quite a long time now. It was bad enough when the Supreme Court interfered in the 2000 election and illegally awarded the Presidency to the incompetent George W. Bush, but now they have topped even that. It is widely known that many of the problems the U.S. faces are a direct result of corporate lobbyists and the influence of corporate money in our political system. There were a few minor restrictions on such practices but now even they have been brushed aside as corporate money will flow into the pockets of our Congresspersons at an accelerated rate, the result of this absolutely asinine decision.
The idea that corporations should have the same rights and privileges as individuals, one of the foundations of these recent decisions, seems to me to be highly questionable (at best), and at worst is simply ridiculous. The idea that gifts of money are simply an exercise of free speech is itself somewhat questionable, but when there are no restrictions on the amounts of free speech that can be exercised, and when corporations obviously have so much more money than anyone else it, obviously means that those with the most money have a monumental advantage. The Supremes looked at a system that was terribly dysfunctional as a form of government and decided to make it worse. Why did they do this? Because they recognize they are themselves just little cogs in a system designed to take over the world in the (unstated) name of Fascism, once again the dream of empire, in this case the greatest empire ever to be established.
Undeterred by the election of a Democratic administration they are just basically ignoring it, knowing that basically it, too, will be swallowed up by this massive movement, financed by corporate interests and motivated by the quest for power and profit. Nothing will be allowed to stand in the way. The one hope to overcome this fascist movement would be to establish a system of public financing for elections, but this recent ruling will make that impossible, as their money will control what happens in Congress and elsewhere.
As Greg Palast has pointed out, there is another insidious feature of this decision that is of the utmost importance, but seems not to be mentioned. Namely, American elections will now be open to non-American interests. The corporations that control most everything are not necessarily just American, they are international in scope. With this ruling there is nothing to prevent the Russians or the Chinese, or any other country from exercising their “free speech” by donating money to influence political decisions that may affect them, as long as their donations come from corporations in which they have an interest. Some of these corporations already have annual incomes exceeding that of many, if not most countries. This means that a few giant corporations will in fact end up ruling the world, national and individual interests will fall by the wayside as they will be simply brushed aside if they do not coincide with the desires of these corporate giants. This is already happening and will result eventually in a two-class society, a wealthy “Upper” class, and a poor “Lower” class, that will exist only in so far as they do the bidding of the former. Is this not what is already happening in the U.S.? This is a situation far more serious than when Teddy Roosevelt fought the “robber barons” and may already have gone so far as to be impervious to change. Note that Obama didn’t even try to take on the Insurance giants, but instead attempted merely to influence a few of their rules. And if he somehow manages to change the banks you can be sure the changes will be mostly cosmetic. I’m sure he knows that if he rocks the boat too strenuously he will become a one term President. Will he sacrifice himself for the good of the country and truly try to change the system, or will he meekly do the bidding of the powers that be. The former spells greatness, the latter business as usual.
Interestingly, there is a third strategy open to Obama, one that I believe he is more likely to pursue. This is because there are areas in which Obama is probably pretty free to operate because these are areas in which the powers that be don’t really care about (unless at any given moment they want to use one of them to further divide the country). For example, I don’t believe these giant corporations have any particular interest in abortion. They don’t really care if women have abortions or not. Similarly, I doubt they have any major interest in “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Nor do they care whether gays marry or not, whether there is gun control or not, if states offer assisted suicides or not, “death panels,” and so on. That is, there are many issues that do not importantly impinge on profits, but about which many Americans hold strong beliefs, either pro or con. Obama can probably meddle in these areas, perhaps even bringing about some changes that will make him appear to have done something, and for which he could take credit without actually having challenged the more basic infrastructure of the “single party” strategy. Am I crazy? Perhaps.
Bipartisanship,
elusive temptress, evades
Barack Obama
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Woe, woe!
Man, 61, gets six months
for slapping two year-old
for crying in Wal Mart.
Well, it happened. The Democrats lost big time in Massachusetts. Now the finger pointing and blame giving will start in earnest. Not only did the voters there elect a Republican to Teddy Kennedy’s former seat, they elected an ultra-right one, and a male centerfold no less, from the party of No. And this even with a respectable turnout that was supposed to favor democrats. Oh woe, woe! It’s like the end of civilization as we know it (not that we are very civilized to begin with). How could it possibly have happened? What went wrong? Was it the candidate? Was it her campaign? Did the Democrats wait too long to take action? Was it a result of Democratic arrogance and overconfidence? Maybe the voters of Massachusetts didn’t want universal health care? Who knows?
I think I know. And I think the answer is basically simple. American voters voted overwhelmingly for change, obviously change from the previous administration. Obama promised us change. But he hasn’t delivered any meaningful change. Oh yeah, he’s made a few more or less cosmetic changes, and perhaps some useful ones, but he has basically just continued the Bush/Cheney business of aligning himself with the big corporations, looking out for the banks, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies, and ignoring what is now usually described as “Main Street.” His much touted stimulus plan has stimulated no one but the very industries that caused us our problems in the first place. He even appointed Bush’s former executives and such to continue in their offices. He even kept Gates in place rather than picking a new Secretary of Defense. Not only has he done that, he has also not only continued the “war” in Afghanistan (that most everyone knows is a lost cause) but has accelerated it. He has not managed to close Gitmo, has not done away with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” has largely ignored the African-American community, and totally sold us out on health care. He didn’t even try to get a decent health care plan, refusing to even consider a single-payer system, abandoning the public option, and basically giving an enormous gift to the insurance giants. He has made no attempt to bring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the other war criminals to accountability, and in fact has become increasingly chummy with Bush, now treating him as any other ex- President, who should be honored and called upon to perform honorary duties such as fund raising for Haiti, the very country that he helped destroy. In ordinary everyday speech, Obama totally “blew it.”
In short, Obama has “talked the talk but has not walked the walk.” People generally don’t expect politicians to keep all their campaign promises, but they also don’t expect them to break promises of meaningful change, and Obama has done this blatantly. He has been rightfully labeled “Bush light,” but I don’t think that goes far enough, he’s been much more than merely light in his continuation of the very policies people voted against. For anyone to charge Obama with being a socialist could not possibly be more ridiculous. As for me, I am sick to death of these phony and unnecessary “wars,” and the continued threat of starting new ones. I am sick of having our country managed in the best interests of the huge corporations that bribe our leaders, I am tired of Israel running our foreign policy and dragging us in to supporting their murder and genocide. I am fed up with “empire.” And I am outraged at the amount of money we are wasting on our military/industrial/political complex year after year, that dwarfs all the rest of the world’s defense budgets put together. I am also sick of having my tax dollars used to kill more and more innocent people. Most of all I am sick of being constantly lied to, not only by our politicians, but also by the media that is no longer even a shadow of the “fourth estate” it was supposed to be. I do not think I am alone in this. In fact, Obama has been caught in a massive lie and the voters of Massachusetts have seen through it. I suspect the rest of the country has too, and this does not bode well for either 2010 or 2012. EXCEPT there is no alternative! It will be either Obama or another Republican, in which case the status quo will continue. As long as there is no significant difference between our two parties there will be no meaningful change of any kind. Obama’s failure to pursue a single-payer system or even a public option “because he thought it would be too difficult,” is an admission that even he doesn’t believe meaningful change is possible. But “Hell hath no fury like an electorate scorned,” and I think that fury is just beginning. Will Obama change his ways? I doubt it, “leopards don’t change their spots.” We need a viable third party desperately, it’s well past time to admit that we have a one party system that is stealing us blind and feeding us fairy tales.
LKBIQ:
Anger at lies lasts forever. Anger at truth can't last.
Greg Evans
TILT:
Clever mice sometimes escape from cats, even when greatly outnumbered.
for slapping two year-old
for crying in Wal Mart.
Well, it happened. The Democrats lost big time in Massachusetts. Now the finger pointing and blame giving will start in earnest. Not only did the voters there elect a Republican to Teddy Kennedy’s former seat, they elected an ultra-right one, and a male centerfold no less, from the party of No. And this even with a respectable turnout that was supposed to favor democrats. Oh woe, woe! It’s like the end of civilization as we know it (not that we are very civilized to begin with). How could it possibly have happened? What went wrong? Was it the candidate? Was it her campaign? Did the Democrats wait too long to take action? Was it a result of Democratic arrogance and overconfidence? Maybe the voters of Massachusetts didn’t want universal health care? Who knows?
I think I know. And I think the answer is basically simple. American voters voted overwhelmingly for change, obviously change from the previous administration. Obama promised us change. But he hasn’t delivered any meaningful change. Oh yeah, he’s made a few more or less cosmetic changes, and perhaps some useful ones, but he has basically just continued the Bush/Cheney business of aligning himself with the big corporations, looking out for the banks, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies, and ignoring what is now usually described as “Main Street.” His much touted stimulus plan has stimulated no one but the very industries that caused us our problems in the first place. He even appointed Bush’s former executives and such to continue in their offices. He even kept Gates in place rather than picking a new Secretary of Defense. Not only has he done that, he has also not only continued the “war” in Afghanistan (that most everyone knows is a lost cause) but has accelerated it. He has not managed to close Gitmo, has not done away with “don’t ask, don’t tell,” has largely ignored the African-American community, and totally sold us out on health care. He didn’t even try to get a decent health care plan, refusing to even consider a single-payer system, abandoning the public option, and basically giving an enormous gift to the insurance giants. He has made no attempt to bring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the other war criminals to accountability, and in fact has become increasingly chummy with Bush, now treating him as any other ex- President, who should be honored and called upon to perform honorary duties such as fund raising for Haiti, the very country that he helped destroy. In ordinary everyday speech, Obama totally “blew it.”
In short, Obama has “talked the talk but has not walked the walk.” People generally don’t expect politicians to keep all their campaign promises, but they also don’t expect them to break promises of meaningful change, and Obama has done this blatantly. He has been rightfully labeled “Bush light,” but I don’t think that goes far enough, he’s been much more than merely light in his continuation of the very policies people voted against. For anyone to charge Obama with being a socialist could not possibly be more ridiculous. As for me, I am sick to death of these phony and unnecessary “wars,” and the continued threat of starting new ones. I am sick of having our country managed in the best interests of the huge corporations that bribe our leaders, I am tired of Israel running our foreign policy and dragging us in to supporting their murder and genocide. I am fed up with “empire.” And I am outraged at the amount of money we are wasting on our military/industrial/political complex year after year, that dwarfs all the rest of the world’s defense budgets put together. I am also sick of having my tax dollars used to kill more and more innocent people. Most of all I am sick of being constantly lied to, not only by our politicians, but also by the media that is no longer even a shadow of the “fourth estate” it was supposed to be. I do not think I am alone in this. In fact, Obama has been caught in a massive lie and the voters of Massachusetts have seen through it. I suspect the rest of the country has too, and this does not bode well for either 2010 or 2012. EXCEPT there is no alternative! It will be either Obama or another Republican, in which case the status quo will continue. As long as there is no significant difference between our two parties there will be no meaningful change of any kind. Obama’s failure to pursue a single-payer system or even a public option “because he thought it would be too difficult,” is an admission that even he doesn’t believe meaningful change is possible. But “Hell hath no fury like an electorate scorned,” and I think that fury is just beginning. Will Obama change his ways? I doubt it, “leopards don’t change their spots.” We need a viable third party desperately, it’s well past time to admit that we have a one party system that is stealing us blind and feeding us fairy tales.
LKBIQ:
Anger at lies lasts forever. Anger at truth can't last.
Greg Evans
TILT:
Clever mice sometimes escape from cats, even when greatly outnumbered.
Monday, January 18, 2010
No Good Deed Unpunished
Woman stabs husband
in heart during
argument about tacos.
I do not believe I have a particularly bad temper. Usually it takes quite a lot of provocation to set me off. But occasionally even a very small thing can do it. That’s what happened to me today and I have been irritated, angry, upset, pissed off and disgusted all day, about everything! I went to the supermarket (my mother-in-law is arriving tomorrow for a week-long visit) to stock up on some necessities. There was a large school bus parked just outside the market with a sign indicating it was part of a drive to raise food for the local food bank. I completed my shopping and left, ignoring the food drive. But before I even arrived home I had begun to feel guilty. As my guilt accelerated I finally gave in to it, returned to the market, bought some beans and pasta and stuff and made a contribution. You might think this might have made me feel better. It didn’t. It just made me more and more angry. I wasn't angry about spending a few dollars, I truly believe in sharing, but one thing leads to another.
First I became angry because I felt guilty. Why should I feel guilty because I did a good deed? Because I began to wonder, why did I have to do that? Why, when I live in what is widely touted as the richest country in the world, should I as an individual have to be responsible for seeing to it that no one would have to go hungry? Why should anyone have to go hungry in the richest country in the world? Thinking about that made me even madder. Isn’t the function of government to look after its citizens? Why doesn’t my government do this? Then I thought about how far we are in debt. I guess we can’t look after our citizens because we don’t have enough money. But why don’t we have enough money? Well, because we have been spending too much on wars. Why wars? I guess because we have to defend ourselves. But then I remembered that our “war” in Iraq was not a result of their attacking us. It was unnecessary to say nothing of criminal. Afghanistan came to mind, a “war” even more stupid and unnecessary than Iraq. Of course there is the Iran problem that probably wouldn’t be a problem if we weren’t so arrogant and ignorant. Mad about this I then remembered that Israel was trying to get us to attack Iran for reasons I think are just paranoia. All this makes me mad as hell. Then I thought about war criminals and became even angrier, knowing that our war criminals are not being held accountable. In fact, they are apparently “buddies” with our current President. That made me even madder.
I began to think about all the plastic bags full of groceries that I saw in the bus, plastic bags, dozens upon dozens of plastic bags. Then I remembered there is a huge floating island of plastic bags in the Pacific Ocean so huge and polluting it can probably never be eliminated. That made me mad. I began thinking about food in general, and the fact that so much of our food now is genetically engineered, especially corn, which makes up part of almost everything we consume nowadays. Corn enjoys huge subsidies from our government, making it cheap so it can be used for most anything. That made me really mad. Of course you can’t think about food these days without thinking about corporate farming, a type of farming that is slowly ruining the land and most of the food products we need, corporate farms that get huge subsidies for growing corn, and other subsidies for growing nothing at all. I’m not happy about this. Farming led me to think about fish farming, and fish farming led me to think about how many of our natural fish species are depleted by overfishing and unenforced regulations. I love fish and this makes me truly unhappy. The disappearance of fish made me think about the extinction of other creatures, animals, birds, insects, virtually nothing has been spared by human rapacity and greed. Animals made me think of Polar Bears which will probably soon be extinct. I’m not pleased about this. And I’m even less pleased about the cause, global warming, that may spell the end of our own species if left unchecked. I get really angry and upset about this. I get especially angry when I get requests for money to save the Polar Bears. I can’t understand how money is going to save the creatures from man-made global warming unless, maybe, it will be used to bribe corporations to stop poisoning our air and water (this seem unlikely). In short, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” Of course I will take it because I have no choice in the matter.
Why don’t I have any choice? Because our political system is completely corrupt and no longer has anything to do with what might be considered “government.” I’m not much of an authority on the evolution of government, but I do know that leaders were not chosen for their ability to line their own pockets at the expense of their citizens. Presumably leaders at all levels of society were chosen to represent their communities and direct their affairs in such a way as to protect them and allow them to flourish. They were supposed to protect the public interest. Somehow, along the way, our leaders have failed to do this. If they had we would not have hungry people out of work, decimated forests, polluted rivers, mountain top mining, corporate farming, billionaires and paupers, disappeared species, wall street bailouts in the billions of dollars, millions upon millions without health care, nor we now be facing a health care bill that is mostly a multi-billion dollar gift to the Insurance companies, massive unemployment, and just endless nonsensical wars. In my view the “teabaggers” are pikers, making mountains out of molehills, baying at the moon about having to pay taxes or being threatened with socialism, or whatever slogans they happen to be obsessed with. Their perceived problems are trivial indeed in view of the real problems facing us, problems I doubt that most of them even think about.
What is the point of this raving? I don’t know. I’m just mad, mad about just about everything. You think I’m mad because my mother-in-law is coming. Wrong, I like my mother-in-law, and besides, being older than she is, I have no fear of her. You might say this is merely a case of “no good deed going unpunished.”
LKBIQ:
A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic.
Aldous Huxley
TILT:
If present trends continue one half of all species on earth will become extinct within the next hundred years.
in heart during
argument about tacos.
I do not believe I have a particularly bad temper. Usually it takes quite a lot of provocation to set me off. But occasionally even a very small thing can do it. That’s what happened to me today and I have been irritated, angry, upset, pissed off and disgusted all day, about everything! I went to the supermarket (my mother-in-law is arriving tomorrow for a week-long visit) to stock up on some necessities. There was a large school bus parked just outside the market with a sign indicating it was part of a drive to raise food for the local food bank. I completed my shopping and left, ignoring the food drive. But before I even arrived home I had begun to feel guilty. As my guilt accelerated I finally gave in to it, returned to the market, bought some beans and pasta and stuff and made a contribution. You might think this might have made me feel better. It didn’t. It just made me more and more angry. I wasn't angry about spending a few dollars, I truly believe in sharing, but one thing leads to another.
First I became angry because I felt guilty. Why should I feel guilty because I did a good deed? Because I began to wonder, why did I have to do that? Why, when I live in what is widely touted as the richest country in the world, should I as an individual have to be responsible for seeing to it that no one would have to go hungry? Why should anyone have to go hungry in the richest country in the world? Thinking about that made me even madder. Isn’t the function of government to look after its citizens? Why doesn’t my government do this? Then I thought about how far we are in debt. I guess we can’t look after our citizens because we don’t have enough money. But why don’t we have enough money? Well, because we have been spending too much on wars. Why wars? I guess because we have to defend ourselves. But then I remembered that our “war” in Iraq was not a result of their attacking us. It was unnecessary to say nothing of criminal. Afghanistan came to mind, a “war” even more stupid and unnecessary than Iraq. Of course there is the Iran problem that probably wouldn’t be a problem if we weren’t so arrogant and ignorant. Mad about this I then remembered that Israel was trying to get us to attack Iran for reasons I think are just paranoia. All this makes me mad as hell. Then I thought about war criminals and became even angrier, knowing that our war criminals are not being held accountable. In fact, they are apparently “buddies” with our current President. That made me even madder.
I began to think about all the plastic bags full of groceries that I saw in the bus, plastic bags, dozens upon dozens of plastic bags. Then I remembered there is a huge floating island of plastic bags in the Pacific Ocean so huge and polluting it can probably never be eliminated. That made me mad. I began thinking about food in general, and the fact that so much of our food now is genetically engineered, especially corn, which makes up part of almost everything we consume nowadays. Corn enjoys huge subsidies from our government, making it cheap so it can be used for most anything. That made me really mad. Of course you can’t think about food these days without thinking about corporate farming, a type of farming that is slowly ruining the land and most of the food products we need, corporate farms that get huge subsidies for growing corn, and other subsidies for growing nothing at all. I’m not happy about this. Farming led me to think about fish farming, and fish farming led me to think about how many of our natural fish species are depleted by overfishing and unenforced regulations. I love fish and this makes me truly unhappy. The disappearance of fish made me think about the extinction of other creatures, animals, birds, insects, virtually nothing has been spared by human rapacity and greed. Animals made me think of Polar Bears which will probably soon be extinct. I’m not pleased about this. And I’m even less pleased about the cause, global warming, that may spell the end of our own species if left unchecked. I get really angry and upset about this. I get especially angry when I get requests for money to save the Polar Bears. I can’t understand how money is going to save the creatures from man-made global warming unless, maybe, it will be used to bribe corporations to stop poisoning our air and water (this seem unlikely). In short, “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” Of course I will take it because I have no choice in the matter.
Why don’t I have any choice? Because our political system is completely corrupt and no longer has anything to do with what might be considered “government.” I’m not much of an authority on the evolution of government, but I do know that leaders were not chosen for their ability to line their own pockets at the expense of their citizens. Presumably leaders at all levels of society were chosen to represent their communities and direct their affairs in such a way as to protect them and allow them to flourish. They were supposed to protect the public interest. Somehow, along the way, our leaders have failed to do this. If they had we would not have hungry people out of work, decimated forests, polluted rivers, mountain top mining, corporate farming, billionaires and paupers, disappeared species, wall street bailouts in the billions of dollars, millions upon millions without health care, nor we now be facing a health care bill that is mostly a multi-billion dollar gift to the Insurance companies, massive unemployment, and just endless nonsensical wars. In my view the “teabaggers” are pikers, making mountains out of molehills, baying at the moon about having to pay taxes or being threatened with socialism, or whatever slogans they happen to be obsessed with. Their perceived problems are trivial indeed in view of the real problems facing us, problems I doubt that most of them even think about.
What is the point of this raving? I don’t know. I’m just mad, mad about just about everything. You think I’m mad because my mother-in-law is coming. Wrong, I like my mother-in-law, and besides, being older than she is, I have no fear of her. You might say this is merely a case of “no good deed going unpunished.”
LKBIQ:
A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic.
Aldous Huxley
TILT:
If present trends continue one half of all species on earth will become extinct within the next hundred years.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Spy Who Loved Us - book
The Spy Who Loved Us The Vietnam War and Pham Xuan An’s Dangerous Game, Thomas A. Bass (Public Affairs, NY, 2009).
This is the fascinating, even amazing story of the life of Pham Xuan An, arguably one of the greatest spies of all time, and certainly one of the most successful. Exceptionally intelligent and wonderfully personable, this Vietnamese newsman was widely regarded as the most knowledgeable person in Vietnam during the war and was sought out by other reporters for his information. He knew and collaborated with virtually all of the most import American newsmen. An actually spent two years in California being trained in American journalism, became a reporter for Time magazine, returned to his country and provided the world with the best and most up-to-date accounts of the war in that troubled nation. He was featured in Time magazine and was highly regarded by all. It was not revealed until after the war that An had been a Communist spy for at least fifty years.
Being a reputable newspaper reporter in Saigon most of the time, and also having secret ties with the communist north, An was in a position to know what was happening and believed on both sides. He hobnobbed with American and European reporters, seemingly knew everyone, and because of his personable nature and natural ability as a conversationalist he was always able to discern what the U.S. position was and what we were going to do next. He became an expert on American psychology as well, and as he spoke English, he was an enormous asset to the Communists. When the Tet offensive failed militarily, for example, An recognized it had succeeded psychologically and would change the American outlook on the war. Because he was so knowledgeable about virtually everything he had to be constantly careful not to blow his cover, and walked an extremely difficult and sensitive line for many years. He offered advice to American and other reporters as well as to the communists. Interestingly enough, he pretty much always told the truth to both sides, knowing how each side would react and use the information he provided. Even after he was exposed, most Western reporters refused to believe he had ever deceived them. An also managed to intervene on occasions in order to save the lives of individuals captured by the Communists, often those Americans he regarded as personal friends. Paradoxically, he loved America and Americans even though he fought against them. He believed that after the war Americans and Vietnamese would become friendly once again and that the war was a temporary mistake and should not have been necessary. An did not seem to hate his enemies but, rather, seemed to understand that human nature often led people to do bad things. When asked about the Mai Lai massacre he replied: “Human beings have two parts, an animal part and a human part. Sometimes the animal nature is so strong that you lose your reason. The Vietnamese do this to the Vietnamese. They don’t know whether they are brothers or enemies. Even God cannot explain it.”
If An did not hate Americans he was not so generous to the French. It was against the French that An first became involved as a patriot. He loved his country and valued independence far more than he liked either the French or the Americans. At the time, Communism seemed to offer a solution to the French occupation of his country (he seems to have also had a sort of overly romantic notion of Communism and how it would be to live under it). It seems he admitted to only one episode in which he actually bore arms against anyone and that did not amount to much. But his information was so valuable to the Communists it was largely responsible for their unusual success against the overwhelming American superiority in arms. When An was given an honorary military burial his medals were revealed, fourteen of them in all, and each one marked an important victory against the enemies of his country. During his lifetime he fought constantly for independence, from France, the U.S., and China. He did not seek nor acquire any personal fortune, what little money he had he saved to be used to support his wife and children after he was gone (he believed he would be eventually exposed, put in prison and tortured). Happily, he avoided such a fate and died at 79 a hero to his country.
Pham Xuan An was truly a remarkable man for any time or place. Although Thomas Bass interviewed him many times, read his articles and articles about him, interviewed many who knew him, and pursued his story diligently, it is unlikely that the full story of his achievements will ever be known. He was a modest man, I believe he did what he believed he had to do, was not necessarily proud of all he had to do, and preferred it be left largely unknown.
This is the fascinating, even amazing story of the life of Pham Xuan An, arguably one of the greatest spies of all time, and certainly one of the most successful. Exceptionally intelligent and wonderfully personable, this Vietnamese newsman was widely regarded as the most knowledgeable person in Vietnam during the war and was sought out by other reporters for his information. He knew and collaborated with virtually all of the most import American newsmen. An actually spent two years in California being trained in American journalism, became a reporter for Time magazine, returned to his country and provided the world with the best and most up-to-date accounts of the war in that troubled nation. He was featured in Time magazine and was highly regarded by all. It was not revealed until after the war that An had been a Communist spy for at least fifty years.
Being a reputable newspaper reporter in Saigon most of the time, and also having secret ties with the communist north, An was in a position to know what was happening and believed on both sides. He hobnobbed with American and European reporters, seemingly knew everyone, and because of his personable nature and natural ability as a conversationalist he was always able to discern what the U.S. position was and what we were going to do next. He became an expert on American psychology as well, and as he spoke English, he was an enormous asset to the Communists. When the Tet offensive failed militarily, for example, An recognized it had succeeded psychologically and would change the American outlook on the war. Because he was so knowledgeable about virtually everything he had to be constantly careful not to blow his cover, and walked an extremely difficult and sensitive line for many years. He offered advice to American and other reporters as well as to the communists. Interestingly enough, he pretty much always told the truth to both sides, knowing how each side would react and use the information he provided. Even after he was exposed, most Western reporters refused to believe he had ever deceived them. An also managed to intervene on occasions in order to save the lives of individuals captured by the Communists, often those Americans he regarded as personal friends. Paradoxically, he loved America and Americans even though he fought against them. He believed that after the war Americans and Vietnamese would become friendly once again and that the war was a temporary mistake and should not have been necessary. An did not seem to hate his enemies but, rather, seemed to understand that human nature often led people to do bad things. When asked about the Mai Lai massacre he replied: “Human beings have two parts, an animal part and a human part. Sometimes the animal nature is so strong that you lose your reason. The Vietnamese do this to the Vietnamese. They don’t know whether they are brothers or enemies. Even God cannot explain it.”
If An did not hate Americans he was not so generous to the French. It was against the French that An first became involved as a patriot. He loved his country and valued independence far more than he liked either the French or the Americans. At the time, Communism seemed to offer a solution to the French occupation of his country (he seems to have also had a sort of overly romantic notion of Communism and how it would be to live under it). It seems he admitted to only one episode in which he actually bore arms against anyone and that did not amount to much. But his information was so valuable to the Communists it was largely responsible for their unusual success against the overwhelming American superiority in arms. When An was given an honorary military burial his medals were revealed, fourteen of them in all, and each one marked an important victory against the enemies of his country. During his lifetime he fought constantly for independence, from France, the U.S., and China. He did not seek nor acquire any personal fortune, what little money he had he saved to be used to support his wife and children after he was gone (he believed he would be eventually exposed, put in prison and tortured). Happily, he avoided such a fate and died at 79 a hero to his country.
Pham Xuan An was truly a remarkable man for any time or place. Although Thomas Bass interviewed him many times, read his articles and articles about him, interviewed many who knew him, and pursued his story diligently, it is unlikely that the full story of his achievements will ever be known. He was a modest man, I believe he did what he believed he had to do, was not necessarily proud of all he had to do, and preferred it be left largely unknown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)